Thursday, December 30, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
I have always felt that the Tea Party Movement was not a mere rebellion against taxes but rather a fight against dark spiritual forces threatening freedom and life in America. Dana Loesch confirms this with her new forearm tattoo: Ephesians 6:12-14
The cited verse reads:
"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand."
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 3:15 AM
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
The RFT continues to do a great job covering the Camp Zoe theft.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 2:26 PM
Monday, December 20, 2010
The St. Louis City and County smoking bans were sold on the premise that the St. Louis heart attack rate would plummet due to the bans. Turns out, according to a just published study, that's not going to happen.
From Dr. Michael Siegel's blog:
"A new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation, Center for Studying Health System Change, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University is the first to examine the relationship between smoking bans and heart attack admissions and mortality trends in the entire nation, using national data. All previous U.S. studies only examined one particular city. In contrast, this study examined data from the Nationwide Inpatient Survey (NIS), which is nationally representative and includes 20% of all non-federal hospital discharges in the United States. The study appears in the Winter 2011 issue of the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Without a doubt, this is the most definitive study yet conducted of the short-term effects of smoking bans on cardiovascular disease.
To give you an idea of the scope of this study compared to previous ones, the Helena study involved a total of 304 heart attack admissions in one community over a period of six months. This study examined a total of 673,631 heart attack admissions and more than 2 million heart attack deaths in 467 counties across all 50 states over an 16-year period.
This study fails to find any significant short-term effect of smoking bans on heart attack admissions or heart attack mortality, although a small effect cannot be ruled out. The study refutes the claims from previous studies that smoking bans result in a short-term reduction in heart attacks in the range of 20-40%, as many anti-smoking groups are asserting. It also refutes the conclusion of the Institute of Medicine that smoking bans result in immediate, substantial declines in heart attack admissions."
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:31 PM
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Thursday, December 09, 2010
Is cigarette smoke a uniquely dangerous smoke? My sons box at a gym that burns incense, one son blacksmiths and another welds. My daughter is going to a party with a bonfire. Should their smoke exposure concern me as far as heart disease? Or is cigarette smoke the only kind that can be lethal in very small doses?
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 9:15 PM
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Dear Members of the St. Louis County Council,
I hope that you will support Councilman Burkett's bill to exempt bars in casinos that would otherwise be exempt if located in St. Louis County outside a casino. St. Louis County voters clearly voted to allow smoking in these establishments and there is nothing wrong with the Council correcting glitch in a law so that the law more perfectly fulfills the obvious will of the voters. I don't believe any County business would have any objection to Councilman Burkett's attempt to make the County smoking ban more fair in its application and more reflective of the will of County voters.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:43 AM
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
Dear Mayor Slay and Directors of the St. Louis City Health Department,
I attended the deliberations of the Health and Human Services Committee during which the exemptions to the St. Louis City Smoke Free Air Act of 2009 were crafted. During the 3 hour meeting, after proposing a bar exemption based on square footage, Alderman Craig Schmid explicitly rejected tying the exemption to any percentage of food sales, saying he wanted "to encourage lots of food" and not just drinking. Furthermore, the later exclusion of kitchen space by the full Board of Aldermen from the square footage totals clearly showed that the aldermen had in mind the exemption of venues with substantial food sales. It was clear to those present at the committee meeting and final deliberations of the full Board of Aldermen that the aldermen intended to allow smoking for five years in establishments in which drinking was the main attraction. Hence not restaurants. But they clearly believed such exempted drinking establishments might have food sales of 50 percent or more.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 6:41 PM
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Friday, November 26, 2010
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:37 AM
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
"If they succeed in seizing Camp Zoe, we can expect the same tactics to be used against music venues nation-wide," Dan Viets told Pro Libertate. "This is a major test case that is being watched very carefully by people who hold music festivals and other large events, and who might find their property and profits subject to seizure without even being accused of a crime, let alone convicted of one."
Those seeking to steal Camp Zoe -- and their stenographers in the local press -- are betting heavily that the mainstream public won't rally to the defense of a counter-culture outpost owned by an bass-playing entrepreneur in dreadlocks.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:59 AM
Sunday, November 21, 2010
This long post about the DEA, Jimmy Tebeau and Camp Zoe on the RFT blog really nailed the DEA to the wall on Zoe. Here is a link to RFT article:
This is really right on!
"When you go to get a building permit in your county, will they issue it to you if there is something wrong? If Camp Zoe was the largest open drug air market in the Ozarks why did they continue to let it happen for 4 years??????? Collect sales tax from it? Put kids lives in danger? Does your tax dollars pay for Jimmy to train and protect us or law enforcement? From what this blogs says, these were big time drug dealers and the cops knowingly and willing let this happen for 4 years. Why did they want Jimmy to do their job? The lady who went to pull her daughter out of Camp Zoe was there what 1 hour and knew that there was drugs. How long did it take you to know drugs were being sold down there? Before you got your tent up? Have you been watching the news? Drug cartels will cut your head off if you try to stop them. Do you think Jimmy wanted to put his family at risk? Or his patrons? 4 YEARS why so long? The first drug purchase that an undercover agent made at Camp Zoe they should have made an arrest! The next permit Zoe wanted issued they should have said NO! We are sorry but we cannot issue you this permit. We have had undercover law enforcement in the crowd and something needs to be done to get a handle on the drug use! If someone smokes pot or serves a minor in a bar, they ticket the owners, if they think they were not trying to control it and give them a warning. 3 warnings and they take away their license. They do not seize the property. The State sends undercover, underage kids all the time into establishments even for cigarettes. They arrest the employee that served it on the spot and gives the place a fine. Why do people not understand and get it threw their thick head. Jimmy is NOT a Drug Enforcement Agent! Your tax dollars pays for the DEA to fight the war on drugs NOT Jimmy! If they need to shut the place down and no more Schwagstocks fine. But do not let them take his land. Let him sell it and get his money out of it. That is why you take a risk and make investments. His bank accounts have been frozen he cannot pay his staff, bills, property taxes and he has been charged with no crime. It is bullshit and everybody should fight like hell so that this does not keep happening to people. If the feds really need the money to fight the war on drugs so badly. They would Drug test everybody who is on or applying for government assistance. 25 year ago when I was in high school, we use to go to the doobie drive up (bus stop at the section 8 housing complex) anytime of the day and get weed, mdma, coke anything we wanted and from what I hear you still can today. I guess the feds are not able to take their own land so it will never stop. I also think that if they drug test all the people living in government housing. 1/2 the war on drugs would be won. Because then maybe work & food will be more important than drugs. The government could make so much money off that. Can you imagine? Not having to feed and house the people who are abusing the system. But giving it to the people that really need it. Wow! then I would think the war on drugs is worth it."
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 6:43 PM
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Dear Mayor Hennessy and O'Fallon City Councilmembers,
I want to warn you that a substantial number of bars in St. Louis County and St. Louis City will be legally be able to continue to allow smoking after Jan 2nd next year. Furthermore, due to the unfairness of both the City and County laws, and their weak enforcement provisions, a large amount of noncompliance can be expected from St. Louis bars and restaurants included in these bans. I strongly suggest for the sake of O'Fallon businesses that any smoking ban legislation put on the ballot exempt "over 21" venues so that no O'Fallon business is left at a competitive disadvantage with similar businesses in St. Louis City or County.
St. Charles County residents favor such an exemption. The most recent survey by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services shows that only 31.2 percent of St. Charles County residents favor a total ban on smoking in bars and cocktail lounges. This survey lines up almost exactly with a Gallup Poll released last August which found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a total ban on smoking in bars.
Research shows that even when imposed statewide, smoking bans cut bar revenues and bar employment. The effect of a smoking ban is even more harmful when neighboring businesses face no such restriction or ignore those in place. Please do not be swayed by the false assurances of professional smoking ban advocates such as Pat Lindsey. Smoking bans do hurt businesses. The best way to protect O'Fallon businesses is to allow free choice to O'Fallon adults with an "over 21" exemption. The Tennessee smoking ban features such an exemption. Please find this law attached.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 4:36 PM
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Dear Chairman Burke and Executive Committee Members,
Please amend the Illinois smoking ban in a way fair to all businesses.
Rather than selectively exempting casinos, please consider reinstating the Chicago air filtration exemption statewide:
"Any public place or place of employment otherwise subject to this Chapter whose owner or operator can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment, that such area has been equipped with air filtration or purification devices or similar technologies as to render the exposure to secondhand smoke in such area, notwithstanding the fact that smoking may be occurring in such area, equivalent to such exposure to secondhand smoke in the ambient outdoor air surrounding the establishment. The commissioner of public health and the commissioner of the environment are jointly authorized to promulgate regulations specifying what types of technologies, when and if available, and taking into account any applicable Federal and/or State standards, satisfy the requirements of this paragraph."
Or please consider an "over 21" exemption such as the Tennessee smoking ban provides. Please find the Tennessee smoking ban attached.
I am very glad to see Illinois moving in the direction of increased freedom and property rights concerning this issue.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 11:21 AM
Monday, November 15, 2010
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 9:40 AM
Sunday, November 14, 2010
This afternoonI talked with Eapen Thampy at Americans for Forfeiture Reform www.forfeiturereform.com
He tells me that the Feds took all the money Jimmy had to pay the bills and mortgage at Zoe. Nevermind hiring a legal defense. Right now Zoe needs contributions just to stay afloat.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 3:57 PM
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 9:38 PM
Friday, November 12, 2010
St. Louis Police Officers and 45 private security people refused to enforce the smoke-free policy or marijuana laws at a recent Widespread Panic concert at the Fox Theatre. A City police officer present told me that they were not asking people to put out their indoor cigarettes or joints. I asked, "Isn't this a smoke-free show?" He replied, "We could enforce that and we could have a riot too!" So how is Jimmy Tebeau supposed to do better than the St. Louis City Police Department at his Camp Zoe shows
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:05 PM
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Jimmy Tebeau is a friend of mine and his band has played at parties at my house. This must be devastating to him and I can't believe the government can take his property without charging him with any crime!
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 7:13 PM
Monday, November 08, 2010
This ordinance only extends the County ban to one Creve Coeur bar, the Hive, and turns the burden of enforcement of the ban over to the Creve Coeur police. Councilwoman Kistner looks pretty dumb right now. The answer to these bans is to put an over 21 workplace exemption on the ballot, which most County residents support.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 9:55 PM
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Basically, Creve Coeur private clubs are being screwed with a phony private clubs exemption that makes the ban sound reasonable. Mr. Jordan of the Creve Coeur American Legion Post explains that the law exempts private clubs with no employees, yet unpaid officers of the club such as himself are considered employees. Hence all private clubs will be included in the ban. Someone needs to call Councilwoman Kistner on this.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 11:10 PM
Dear Councilwoman Kistner,
Ventilation and filtration systems are readily available to Creve Coeur bars and private clubs which can substantially clear tobacco smoke from their indoor air. Please find attached a 2008 study which demonstrates this. Shouldn't private clubs be allowed to install such technology, if they have not done so already, rather than face a smoking ban? Shouldn't they be allowed that option?
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:21 AM
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Dear Councilwoman Kistner,
The St. Louis County smoking ban passed by a strong majority last year in part due to its reasonable exemptions for "over 21" entertainment venues like casinos and bars, as well as its exemption for old folks living out their last years in nursing homes. All private clubs were rightly exempted. The County ban lined up with what St. Louis County residents, Missourians and Americans generally want: no smoking in most restaurants but free choice in "over 21" establishments and private clubs..
In fact, the latest Gallup poll released in August found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a ban on all smoking in bars.
Likewise, a 2007 Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services poll likewise found that only 30 percent of St. Louis County residents, and only 27 percent of Missourians, favor such an extreme restriction.
Councilwoman Kistner, your proposed smoking ban for Creve Coeur removes most of the County's reasonable exemptions and turns over enforcement of the ban to the Creve Coeur police. I find it particularly unconscionable that you seek to ban all smoking in the Creve Coeur American Legion hall established just after World War II, yet your ordinance exempts a cigar bar that is open to the public. How can you justify restricting the freedoms of Creve Coeur veterans in their own private club, yet tolerate tobacco smoke in a for-profit business the public can enter without charge? Our veterans deserve better than to be hassled by Creve Coeur police in their own private club!
Furthermore, your ordinance entirely bans smoking in nursing homes, yet state law clearly permits such homes to allow indoor designated smoking areas. Local ordinances cannot ban what state law permits. I hope a legal challenge would soon be brought against this Draconian aspect of your ban if it passes and is enforced in its current form. Really Councilwoman Kistner, many people enter nursing homes at the end of their lives with little choice, often against their will. To send them out into the rain, wind and cold is really a mean thing on your part that I hope you will reconsider.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 1:30 PM
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
I am working with a group of lawyers putting together a challenge to the Clayton smoking ban in public parks. The team of lawyers is lead by Beavis Schock, who recently successfully challenged Paul McKee's Northside plan.
Any Clayton resident who currently smokes in any Clayton park, and wishes to continue to do so, should contact me: firstname.lastname@example.org
We need as many plaintiffs as possible.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 6:34 PM
Sunday, October 10, 2010
The PD and Wash U say air filtration doesn't work against tobacco smoke. I thought of an easy test last night that would prove them wrong:
The smoking room of local tobacco shop has the best air filtration system around that I have heard of , better even than the five unit system at DD's. I'll get six cigar smokers to smoke there for an hour. It takes an hour to smoke an average cigar. During the first half hour of this smoking session, the filtration system will be off. At the end of that half hour, an AQ scientist will measure the smoke in the air. For the next half hour the filtration system will be on full blast. After a half hour of filtration, the air will again be tested. If the PD and Wash U are right, the air at the end of hour should be at its worst. But I doubt that is what will happen.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:09 AM
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Quincy Troupe's Drinking Law
I just read thru Alderman Quincy Troupe's proposes public drinking law a couple times and it is pretty confusing. Doesn't this law ban drinking beer at any picnic in Forest Park except a licensed picnic event? And what about tailgating at Ram's games? Nonintoxicating beer is banned too? So you can't sit in the park with an O'douls and read a book.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:08 PM
Thursday, September 16, 2010
These ceiling fans would qualify as "smoke specific ventilation systems" for the new Wash U secondhand smoke study. Martin Pion wasn't sure to what extent ceiling fans were the subject of the new research. He is currently checking and will let us know.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 6:41 PM
Friday, September 10, 2010
We have no idea if the Wash U study tested any reputable air purification systems. The units in the tested establishment may well have been inadequate and poorly maintained. The Double D Lounge has five perfectly maintained air purification machines that remove all components of secondhand smoke from bar air. I challenge Wash U to test the air at the Double D Lounge.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 11:00 AM
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
I challenge the Wash U researchers to test the air at the Double D Lounge which has five of the most powerful air purification systems ever made running 24/7. These units remove all the components of secondhand smoke from bar air. If the air at Double D Lounge is found to be polluted, then I'll concede their point.
Till then, we have no idea what "ventilation systems" were in use in the establishments tested since the establishments tested remain unnamed. "Ventilation systems" could mean anything?
Some lesser filtration systems get the particles but leave the nicotine behind. Dr. Walt Sumner, President of the St. Louis Academy of Family Physicians says it is the particles that are harmful, not the chemicals.
Maybe by "ventilation systems" they meant purifans:
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 7:42 PM
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:49 AM
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:17 PM
Monday, August 23, 2010
Missouri businesses need to back up our Missouri senators in their stand against new EPA ozone rules. I am proud of Senator Bond's fighting spirit when he says:
"This administration must be realizing that its job-killing, big-government agenda isn't what the voters want. But I want to ensure these EPA regulations are stopped, not just delayed until a more convenient time after the election."
I am calling the offices of Bond and McCaskill tomorrow and am encouraging everyone possible to do the same.
These new ozone standards would threaten many Missouri businesses. In the paint business, for example, voc restrictions due to these new rules could outlaw many of the oil-based paints necessary to preserve traditional architecture in St. Louis. If these rules go through, I hope the paint companies challenge this ruling in court the way the tobacco companies successfully challenged the 1992 EPA Report.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 7:47 PM
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Monday, August 16, 2010
It will be interesting to see if Mayor Kelly and the Brentwood Board of Aldermen have violated the Special Laws Clause of the Missouri Constitution by writing and passing a special law they freely admit was only intended to equally hinder three Brentwood businesses. Donna mentioned to the press tonight that she is exploring such a challenge.
Margaret Gillerman once again does a really fair article about the ban in the Post-Dispatch.
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 10:47 PM
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
A Gallup Poll was released last Friday which found that only 31 percent of Americans favor a complete ban on smoking in bars.
Gallup sums up the finding:
"Currently, half of U.S. states have broad bans on smoking in enclosed public places, including workplaces, restaurants, and bars. The rest have more limited restrictions, such as requiring designated smoking areas in restaurants and workplaces, or prohibiting smoking only in government buildings and schools. A careful review of these laws could reveal that some states go further in restricting smoking than the American public would prefer, while others don't go nearly far enough."
The Brentwood Board of Aldermen votes on a smoking ban the includes all Brentwood "over 21" bars and private clubs, including the American Legion Hall, on Monday night. Most Americans don't want a ban that strict!
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 9:06 PM
Monday, August 02, 2010
Tomorrow Missouri voters will be the first in the nation to weigh in on the subject of government mandated health insurance. The Show Me state will have the opportunity to show Washington and the rest of the country that it is NOT acceptable to force Missouri citizens to purchase something that they do not want, that it is not the role of Congress to determine for each individual what product is necessary for his or her well-being. Essentially, Proposition C is an issue of freedom: whether or not Missourians will have the freedom to discern for themselves what is in their best interests.
Please vote for freedom by voting YES on C!
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 8:24 PM
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Dear Councilman Fraser,
I found an interesting survey conducted just before the November 2006 election in Ohio. The survey found that smoking bans with exemptions are preferred by both the general public and likely voters over complete bans. This supports our contention that the exemptions in your St. Louis County smoking ban made it more popular with County voters than it would have been had a strict smoking ban that included bars had been proposed. Here is the relevant passage from the attached survey:
"Smoking Ban without exception
Yes 42.6 47.7
No 46.9 43.9
Undecided 10.5 8.4
Smoking Ban with exceptions
Yes 51.4 52.5
No 33.8 36.1
Undecided 14.8 11.4
A proposed ban on smoking in public places without exceptions garners 43% support from the general public and 47% opposition. However, the figures are reversed among likely voters, where the proposition leads 48 to 44%. This was the only example where the preferences of the public in general and likely voters differ for ballot proposals.
A proposal to ban smoking in public places with some exceptions was more popular, with a majority of both the general public and likely voters supporting it."
Posted by Bill Hannegan at 11:50 PM