ND House Waters Down “Ridiculous” State Smoking Ban


In the last election North Dakotans voted for a statewide smoking ban that, going beyond merely banning smoking, contained a number of provisions for workplaces such as posting signs and removing factory-installed ash trays even in personal vehicles used for work. But today the ND House voted for two laws watering down that ban.

North Dakotans thought they were “voting on a smoking bill” and were “not at all aware” of some of the other provisions in the measure, said Rep. Vernon Laning (R-Bismarck) who carried HB1292 to the floor of the House. “This gets to the point of being ridiculous,” he said of the ballot measures requirements.

That bill removes several of the signage and other requirements contained in the measured passed by voters, and it passed the House on a 72-22 vote.

The House also considered, and passed, Rep. Blair Thoreson’s bill (HB1253) which originally would have allowed businesses to invoice the state’s tobacco prevention board for the cost of putting up signs. That bill was amended to require that the tobacco prevention board provide the signage upon request.

Rep. Eliot Glasshiem (D-Grand Forks) argued that Thoreson’s bill “seems like a deliberate attempt to cost [the tobacco prevention board] time and money.”

To which I respond, well duh.

The tobacco prevention board is state-sanctioned political activism funded by North Dakota’s share to the tobacco class action lawsuits. Republicans are very much interested in draining that particular swamp of any resources to continue their activism, and the creation of that board through the initiated measure process is a strong argument for some of the laws which would reform the ballot measure process.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters.

Related posts

  • zipity

    I f’ing despise the Anti-Tobacco Jihadis and their flat out bald faced lie commercials.

    “Smoking cost everyone $XXX dollars a year, even if you don’t smoke…”

    Um. Can you show your work on that math please? Does it take into account the millions of dollars in taxes collected on the sale of the LEGAL product known as tobacco? Or the money society saves when a heavy smoker dies early, sparing the Government paying out social security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc., etc.

    And that one about the poor, poor woman. Forced to work in a bar against her will with smokers, who apparently are smoking Sarin nerve gas, because her father and her daughter are just SURE it is KILLING HER.

    I just want to smack the sad eyed little daughter every time I see that over the top propaganda (which would make Josef Goebbels blush).

    Slime balls, every one of those “do-gooder” nanny-state f**k wads.

    • johnny bravo

      just quit smoking fool!

      • zipity

        Sure I will. Once you hit your ideal Body Mass Index as per the Federal Government guidelines. And eat only the foods Queen Mooch and the Center for Science In the Public Interest recommends. And refrain from any dangerous activities. Like driving a car. Or drinking alcohol. Or participating in any form of sports. Until then STFU moron….

        • Sue

          Love it zipity!

    • nisakiman

      Heh. Well said zipity. You should pop over to Frank’s place, you’ll find a lot of like-minded people there.


    • nisakiman

      I’m doing this as two posts because I sometimes have problems with Disqus if I put more than one link in a comment.

      There is a very informative site here:


      Which demolishes most of the lies (with links to the original research) that we are being fed about tobacco / smoking. Check it out. You’ll find loads of info.

  • zipity

    I grew up during a time when most ALL adults smoked. You couldn’t get away from it. There were ashtrays in DOCTORS offices.

    And yet among myself and my peers? My graduating high school class from 40 years ago totaled around 350 students. Of that, around 10 have passed away. And 4 of those were suicides, 3 were auto accidents. If the Tobacco Taliban’s “statistics” were to be believed, more than half of us should have dropped dead by now from all the second hand smoke (not to mention a fair number of them became smokers themselves).

    Proves the old adage again. There are 3 kinds of lies.

    Lies. Damned Lies. And statistics.

  • Opinion8ed

    They will never, ever, be able to produce one death certificate that says second hand smoke, and until they do, I will not be a part of this debate

    • grammie

      I have made the 2nd hand smoke on a death certificate reason that it is such a silly point to make.

      • harleyrider1989

        The fools were buying the anti-tobacco nazis junk science!


        Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

        By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

        Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

        What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

        “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

        Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

        The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

        Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.


        A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

        Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

    • zipity

      Part of this pernicious anti-tobacco campaign began when they stopped putting “Old Age” as a cause of death on anyone’s death certificate. Now, a 90 year old man who dies and who smoked for any part of his life, gets marked down as a smoking death. If you can’t argue with facts, just make up your own…


      • Opinion8ed

        They claim they have proof it is single handedly killing people and I call bullshit

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          They win by cheating.

          We were losing this fight before we knew we were in a fight.

          • zipity

            Hmmm…that sounds familiar. Might that be similar to the worlds response to Radical Islam?

            They’ve been at war with us for 700+ years. We only just noticed recently.

            Well, some of us noticed. Many are still convinced Islam is The Religion of Peace©

  • Roy_Bean

    I hope they got Heidi’s permission before they started dipping into her tobacco money.

    • camsaure

      I am sure that she would approve because it tramples on the publics constitutional rights. She after all supports the tyranies of the progressive left.

  • grammie

    of all the laws passed this one needs to go away, the way it was before the vote was seeming keeping every one happy until some one wanted to mess it up. I so disagree with putting this much control in a private business the smoking huts were working I do want to mention I am a non smoker. I think the law crossed the line of common sense

  • WOOF

    Smoke if you got’em dupes.
    “the Tea Party’s anti-tax movement back to the early 1980s when tobacco
    companies began to invest in third party groups to fight excise taxes on
    cigarettes, as well as health studies finding a link between cancer and
    secondhand cigarette smoke”

    • banjo kid

      yes and the same people swear by chemo that spreads secondary cancer through out the body and extends life by at least five years on average which the person suffers greatly from the chemo , we are still bleeding patients to death. Smoking is bad for you I admit that but am not sure about the link to cancer as the amount of the stuff placed on rats backs was maybe 10,000 times what we would experience smoking . They have yet to explain why the person lives to be 100 and over and never gets cancer, George Burns is an example of that one.

  • RCND

    They should have slipped in language excluding smoke shops while they were at it

  • Opinion8 ed

    This slush fund needs to be used up any way we can. The claim was that hospital bills were going for all of us due to smokers, who apparently were all uninsured,so they sued to reimburse hospitals which would lower our cost, but that was a lie. Now high schools get to dip into that slush fund and your groups and organizations can ask for grant money for events like after-prom, and after-grad parties to the tune of $500 each year from the anti tobacco slush fund because they do not allow you to smoke at These events, school sponsored, tobacco free events… duh. If you are a business request as many gins as you possibly can to get it used up promptly so every time the busy bodies get a thought it comes from their wallets and no one else’s

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      I still can’t believe we are at a point where we’re forcing a perfectly legal industry pay form activism to put itself out of business.

  • spud

    Stopped in at happy hour and had a couple cold coor’s lights bar was full and all were happy. Guess zipity-do-duh was not there. But the rest of us were having fun.

    • zipity

      Congratulations….I hope you weren’t in a small town bar, as they will likely meet the same fate as thousands of Irish pubs…


      • Ray Seltz

        Only deluded sheople still buy the notion that bars fail when the smoking ban goes into force.

        • nisakiman

          So it’s just a coincidence that in UK more than 11,000 pubs and clubs have closed since the smoking ban 5 years ago, is it? One of the biggest Pubcos (companies that own chains of pubs) in the UK lost nearly all it’s share value within a year of the ban. If you look at the linked chart,


          the blue line is BAT (British American Tobacco) and the yellow line is the Pubco chain. The smoking ban came into force in the summer of 2007, exactly the point at which the chart shows a precipitous decline in share price.

          I think I know who the deluded one is here…

          • Ray Seltz

            My reference is in the United States. Name just one Fargo who lost business due to the smoking ban. Just one.

          • nisakiman

            I don’t know about the US, but from what I’ve read, it is pretty much on a parallel with the UK. Read this article from a trade magazine from the UK. I think it probably applies equally to the States.


          • harleyrider1989

            Since he became the owner of the Main Bar nearly 19 years
            ago, Allan Leier said he’s seen a steady increase in his business every
            year. But all that came to an end last April when Bismarck’s ban on
            smoking in bars took effect.

            “When this thing started, we were off by 40 to 50 percent, and then
            it leveled off,” Leier said. “Now we’re right at between 32 and 38
            percent down every month. I can compare by going back 3 years and I can
            compare day by day – same day last year, same day two years ago – and
            I’ve got the numbers to prove it.” …

            Down the street a few blocks, Brian Hill, owner of Lucky’s Bar, is
            facing a similar situation. Hill said not only has he lost business due
            to the smoking ban, but his employees are also making less money.

            “It’s one thing when I’m losing money, but when my staff, who depend
            on their tips – it’s the tips that’s the important thing – and when they
            don’t have the sales they aren’t getting the tips so they’re hurt,”
            Hill said.http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/shocker-smoking-ban-putting-bars-out-of-business/

          • harleyrider1989

            Forum staff report, The Forum
            November 11, 2005

            BISMARCK – After nearly a month under a city smoking ban, restaurant-bar managers say business has dropped.

            “We just don’t see the crowds coming in for the late evenings like we
            used to,” said Jason Johnson, the general manager of TGI Friday’s in
            Bismarck. “Week nights and weekends – we notice around 9:30, the bar is
            pretty much empty.”

            Peacock Alley owner Mary Barbere said nonsmokers are grateful that
            her bar is now smoke-free, but she said business has gone down. The
            restaurant area was smokefree earlier.

          • harleyrider1989

            Jump to full article: Fargo (ND) InForum, 2004-07-09
            Author: Tom Blair


            Yes, there are areas in our country where business has
            improved after smoking bans, and everyone has figures to show, however
            this is not Seattle, Los Angeles or New York, this is Fargo North
            Dakota, where truck stop, casino and bar people are, for the most part,
            smokers. We are over 21; we may ride motorcycles, water ski, scuba dive,
            parachute, gamble and smoke. It’s our business and our choice.

            The Moorhead 2 a.m. closing has hurt Fargo bars to the tune of
            thousands of dollars monthly. The new commission members have no idea
            how a smoking ban will hurt the Fargo bar business and do not care. How
            bad will it hurt?

            Recently we had a “smoke free” night at the Northern. It was in The
            Forum ads three days, we had posters in our business, and we sent out
            three e-mails to over 2,000 regular customers about the smoke free
            night. We had it on a Thursday night and business was down over $800
            compared to the average Thursday.

            That will end up being around a quarter of a million dollars a year
            loss in revenue for our bar alone. The three members of our City
            Commission who want a total smoking ban in bars will be sending millions
            of dollars to Dilworth, Glyndon and other surrounding towns.

          • Ray Seltz

            What happened one night before the ban even happened is beyond irrelevant. Funny, but you didn’t post what happened once the actual ban took place. . I wonder why? :-)

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Davidson/100003717458506 John Davidson

            It appears those stories have been suppressed some where along the way! In fact the links to these stories are dead. Only the way back machine brought these back around.

            But we have thousands of businesses where smoking bans have put them out of business along with thousands of others where hours were cut staff laid off and tips gone! The hospitality sector loses roughly 30-40% after bans are imposed with few exceptions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Davidson/100003717458506 John Davidson

            Springfield Business Journal: Smoking Ban Taking a Toll

            Lauren Matter


            8:59 p.m. CDT, October 2, 2011
            Four months into Springfield’s city wide smoking ban, some businesses are seeing a decline in revenue.

            The owner of one Springfield bar, Tailgaters Pub and Eatery on South Scenic Avenue, says they have been losing $1,000 a week since the ban went into effect and had no choice but to close the first weekend of October.

            Other pubs and restaurants are seeing a revenue decline as well.

            The numbers range from 25% to a 45% drop in the amount of money they’re bringing in now compared to before the ban.

            Owners say it’s difficult to manage cash flow and employment levels.

      • spud

        More bogus information. Enjoy the fresh air.

  • gilbyguy

    Can anyone tell me why the initiated measure also banned Electronic smoking devices? They only emit water vapor (no second hand effect) and seem to be a viable tool for people who want to quit smoking.

    • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

      A type of Thought-Crime law—even stupider than the ban on candy cigars and cigarettes.

    • Seejai

      I was able to convince a few people not to vote for it when they heard that (they were surprised, because of course all they knew was that bars would be smoke-free). It seems like not only are they punishing smokers, but people actually trying to quit smoking.

  • banjo kid

    The entire smoking ban is wrong headed when they intrude on a person’s private space . like being able to smoke in areas not surrounded by people where can one go to smoke like their own homes or cars . soon the only place a person can smoke will be on top of mount yeti in the far east during a snow storm . Even to have apartment living effected is wrong as long as a smoker is doing so inside his home it should not bother a neighbor . In bars if the establishment wants smoking let the non smokers go else where .

    • Jeremiah Glosenger

      When my son was very young we lived in old apartments where smoke from other apartments would come into our apt from parties and seriously aggravate a respiratory illness to where he had to go to the ED. At great sacrifice, we had to spend $450 we didn’t have for a machine to detoxify the air until our lease was up. I think that’s the point of including apartments.

  • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

    I’m not seeing any mention of third-hand smoke. There is real legislative potential for that.


    • harleyrider1989

      Thirdhand smoke fever – another example of prejudice and propaganda
      Friday February 12, 2010
      Chris Snowdon, author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking, explains the “science” behind the latest anti-smoking scaremongering

      It was the kind of laboratory experiment that two chemists might conduct to kill time on a rainy Friday afternoon. It resulted in global media coverage. The Daily Telegraph was only marginally more excitable than the many other newspapers which reported it:

      “Third-hand smoke as dangerous as cigarette fumes … Third-hand smoke found in hair and on clothes can be as dangerous as the fumes billowing directly from a cigarette – particularly to babies and children.”

      This came just over a year after the concept of ‘thirdhand smoke’ – toxins lingering in hair and furniture for months after a cigarette is extinguished – was first launched into the public consciousness. On that occasion, a telephone survey asking whether parents would be less likely to smoke if they believed that dormant carcinogens in the upholstery could attack their children was reported as if such a phenomenon had already been proven. In fact it had not even been studied, but this speculative survey was enough to prompt think-of-the-children hyperbole from the Daily Mail under the headline: ‘Even smoking outside can harm your baby’.


      Having established that a section of the public was open to the idea of a new health scare, the first laboratory experiment was commissioned (the order of events providing an insight into how these things work). Conducted in the respected Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, this experiment involved putting nitrous acid in contact with nicotine to see if the reaction created tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs). Specifically, they were looking for NNA and two known carcinogens – NNN and NNK.

      The nicotine had been absorbed into a surface, hence ‘thirdhand smoke’, although not the clothes and hair mentioned in subsequent news reports. Instead, the glove compartment of a truck driven by a heavy smoker was selected; the smallest and most confined workplace imaginable. A sample was taken by wiping the glove box and the nitrous acid was then sprayed on, with underwhelming results. No NNN was found and both NNA and NNK were found at barely detectable levels, both under 1 ngcm-2. This was the closest the researchers came to experimenting in real-life conditions.


      In a further experiment, the team collected a sample from the truck using cellulose substrates which absorbed twice as much nicotine and, unsurprisingly, yielded twice as many TSNAs, albeit still well below 5 ngcm-2. They then exposed some cellulose substrates to secondhand smoke, but the levels of TSNA produced were, as the authors reported, “negligible”. Finally, they gave up using cigarettes altogether and simply impregnated the cellulose substrates with pure nicotine vapour. This produced nicotine concentrations that were 15 times higher than were found in the truck and when the nitrous acid was applied, the researchers were rewarded with a more newsworthy finding. Much higher levels of NNA were recorded (over 20 ngcm-2) and NNK also rose, albeit to a fairly feeble 3 ngcm-2.

      Taken as a whole, this was remarkably flimsy evidence upon which to hang the claim that stale tobacco in clothes and furniture was “as dangerous as cigarette fumes”. Having come up empty-handed using a real-life smoking environment, the researchers had resorted to using nicotine vapour on cellulose substrates in an experiment that could not be replicated outside of a laboratory. Even then, they had not found NNN in any of the experiments and the only TSNA to appear in any quantity was NNA. This posed a problem because NNA doesn’t actually cause cancer, as the authors admit:

      “NNA carcinogenicity has not been reported.”

      This left them with one carcinogen that was barely present, one carcinogen that wasn’t present at all and one TSNA that was present but wasn’t a carcinogen. But even these inauspicious findings only hinted at a more fundamental problem with the study.


      The paper had shown that nitrous acid molecules will react with absorbed nicotine (just as it would with free-floating nicotine) to produce TSNAs. The more nitrous acid in the room, and the more nicotine on the surface, the more the reaction will occur. But for the experiment to have any meaning beyond the walls of a Berkeley science lab, it needed to have some relevance to everyday life. People do not tend to spray their homes with nitrous acid. Was there, indeed, any reason for using nitrous acid at all, beyond the probability that it would create some nasty sounding chemicals?

      Nitrous acid concentrations in the average Californian home are 4.6 parts per billion. The Berkeley researchers used concentrations of 65 parts per billion. They described this dose as “high but reasonable”, a baffling description since it is 14 times higher than would be found in a normal domestic setting. Since they were already using 15 times more nicotine than would be found in a smoky truck cabin, any relevance the experiment had to real life had long-since vanished. The concentrations were fantastically high when compared to the average home.


      In any case, if your house or car is full of nitrous acid then you have more to worry about than it reacting with absorbed nicotine. As the authors point out in the study:

      “The main indoor sources of HONO [nitrous acid] are direct emissions from unvented combustion appliances, smoking, and surface conversion of NO2 and NO.”

      NO2 and NO themselves are products of unregulated combustion. So you’ll only be exposed to high concentrations of nitrous acid if you’re exposed to the products of combustion – ie you’re a peasant in a smoke-filled hut, you live in a very polluted city like New Delhi, or you are in fact smoking a cigarette. The combustion products themselves are carcinogens, and are present in much higher concentrations than the TSNAs. Your problem would be the nitrous acid, not the chair you smoked a cigar in last Christmas.

      Chris Snowdon is author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist: A History of Anti-Smoking


      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Thanks. As a top scientist once said to me: “Science is one of the more dangerous religions.”

        • harleyrider1989

          Its all a massive lie! Every bit of the second hand smoke myth and then 3rd hand trash science!

  • Guest Observer

    Apparently Glassheim is not the brightest bulb on the tree.

  • Seejai

    Yeah, that’s why you should try to read the measures, not just vote based on the proponents’ slogans. Good job, North Dakota.

  • Ray Seltz

    I’m ok if you smoke as long as you don’t litter your butts out your car window, They rarely get caught, but last fall I witnessed a guy litter a butt and honked. A cop right behind me saw him as well. I waved and smiled as I saw the cop lights go on to pull him over.

    • nisakiman

      You do realise that most new cars are built without ashtrays don’t you? What’s a smoker supposed to do with his butt? Swallow it?

      This is typical anti-smoker logic. They forbid people from smoking in offices and bars, and then complain loudly about smokers standing outside the door smoking and leaving their butts on the ground. The hypocrisy and intolerance of the anti-smoking zealots is beyond belief.

      Did you know that one of the Articles of the FCTC ( The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, which is an international agreement that countries are coerced to sign under threat of sanctions from the WHO and IMF) states that any proposals for tobacco control cannot have any input from ‘vested interests’ in tobacco. Which basically means that they will only hear submissions from people / organisations that agree with them. Anyone who disagrees is considered a ‘vested interest’, and so is allowed no input.

      Article 5.3, FCTC


      • Ray Seltz

        C’mon- how pathetic can one be??? Do you use that same excuse when you have a bag of McDonald’s wrappers to discard? Do you defecate on the sidewalk because you’re not near a bathroom?

        I get tired about whining about so, called rights. I’m tired of liberals and all those that find excuses to justify their behavior.

        Responsible smokers keep an empty pop can in their drink holder, about 1/4 full of water.

        • nisakiman

          But wouldn’t it have been easier, and more sensible to ignore the shrill rantings of the anti-tobacco lobby and continue to fit ashtrays in cars? It’s not as if the fact that if there is an ashtray fitted it means that it must be used, even by non-smokers. Why on earth should a smoker have to cart around a tin with water in it in his car? The simplest solutions are usually the best. But of course the whole thrust of the anti-smoking propaganda is to stigmatise and demonise smokers, and one way of doing that is to force them to do things that they would not normally do, like stand out on the street and leave their butts on the pavement (sidewalk). Then condemn them for doing it. I’m sorry Ray, but I’m afraid that you have been successfully brainwashed into bigotry, into the sort of discrimination that if it were levelled at any other section of society would be rightly condemned. This is what zealots do. Divide and conquer. They have no morals.

          • Ray Seltz

            people that litter are not only moral bankrupt, they are pigs, unselfish and inconsiderate. Oh, and obviously lazy.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Davidson/100003717458506 John Davidson

            Another Anti-Smoking Hoax Debunked. Those cigarette filters are 100% biodegradable.

            The cigarette butt menace was created to support outdoor smoking bans because many non-smokers will accept that secondhand smoke is not harmful in an outdoor setting.

            The anti-smoking zealots admit that the tobacco and paper in cigarette butts are biodegradable, but claim that the cellulose acetate cigarette filters are a plastic, like styrofoam and polystyrene, and will contaminate the earth forever. This is not true. Cellulose acetate is a wood product. It is completely degradable through biological, chemical, and photo chemical degradation mechanisms.

            Sorry, I don’t have a nice, easy to read MSM news article to give you. I have research papers from cellulose acetate manufacturers. Ann W., a commentor to a Dick Puddlecote article, put me onto this. http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.com/2011 … found.html

            http://www.acetateweb.com/pdf/Environme … ilters.pdf
            “STUDY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEGRADATION OF CIGARETTE FILTERS: A simulation of the Roadside or Parking Lot Environment.” Stephen K. Haynes, et al,., Research Laboratories, Eastman Chemical Company, Kingsport Tenn.

            “In recent years there has been increasing public awareness of items which may be discarded as litter with particular attention being given to cigarette filters. Some studies have concluded that when cigarette filters are introduced into the environment, they either do not degrade or degrade very slowly. Previous work in our laboratories has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. The purpose of this study was to examine the changes occurring in cigarette filters over time in an environment similar to that of a parking lot or roadside area. In this environment, exposure to sunlight, moisture and wind occur, but there is limited exposure to microbial attack … ”

            “CONCLUSIONS: Previous work has demonstrated that cigarette filters biodegrade readily in environments where mixed microbial populations can thrive. This work demonstrates that current commercial cigarette filters also degrade when exposed to an environment which is not optimal for microbial biodegradation.”

  • Waski_the_Squirrel

    The smoking ban was ridiculous and the voters were wrong to pass it. That said, I don’t think it’s the legislature’s job to protect voters from themselves. If the voters made a bad decision, let them enjoy the consequences. They might actually think and read the law the next time.

    Honestly, I don’t think a lot of people really did read the measure through. However, if the legislature can undermine a measure at any time, what is the point of having measures in this state? The only justification for interference would be if the measure violates the constitution or established law.

    • camsaure

      Well it DOES infringe on constitutional rights to private property.

      • Waski_the_Squirrel

        The argument you would hear about that is that it is private property open to the public. This is the argument for ADA requirements, food inspections, safety rules, and the like. Unfortunately, the private property argument won’t go anywhere, even if it really is private property.

        • harleyrider1989

          The ban wont last already many cities are are looking at repealing their bans. Casper Wyoming will be repealing their ban this week.
          Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

          1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

          1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

          1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

          1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business … is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

          1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

          1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.

  • History Repeated

    For some background on the antismoking fanaticism of the last 3 decades, see comments by “History Repeated” here: