New York ‘CLASH’ Has Filed the Lawsuit about the Ecig Ban

For those who do not know, Bloomberg and his cronies on the New York City legislature enacted a ban on ecigs in bars etc as a last-gasp event before their term of office ended. All these people ceased to be members of the legislature within a month of the enactment.

Unfortunately for them, in their rush, they overlooked a requirement in the New York ‘constitution’ that any law enacted must have only one subject.

The smoking ban in bars etc was called “The Smoke-free Air Act” (or very similar). Indeed, further into the Act, the ban specifically stated that it referred to tobacco smoke. What Bloomberg and his henchmen did was simply to add “….. and electronic cigarettes” to the tobacco smoke ban. You could paraphrase  it thus:

“In bars, restaurants, etc which are open to the public, the production of smoke from cigarettes, cigars, pipes, etc, using tobacco, is banned” What Bloomberg and his henchmen did was to add: “…. and this also applies to ecigs”.

New York CLASH “Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment”, led by the heroine Audrey Silk, has taken up the cause of Vapers. I do not know why Vapers could not have done it themselves. Audrey says plainly that the ’cause’ of smokers and vapers is identical. That is, that smoking and vaping bans militate against our common law right to assemble and provide services to each other. No one is permitted, by law, to open a bar with the distinct intention of providing a service to smokers. Bloomberg’s anti-ecig addition also banned the same thing for vapers, regardless of the manifest harmlessness of ecigs. Thus, a person can go into a bar and drink two bottles of whisky in half an hour, but he cannot vape!

 

———

CLASH appealed for donations, and it must have raised sufficient funds to proceed since the Attorney has been instructed and has filed the ‘action’.

I got the information from Jredheadgirl:

http://www.jredheadgirl.blogspot.co.uk/

Juliette has linked to a recording of a conversation with the attorney who will be handling the Action. I strongly recommend that you listen to it. Unlike many such recordings, there is very little waffle.

When I contemplated at an earlier time what might happen in this Action, I imagined that the City might claim that it was not the ‘what’ (smoking) that the prohibition was about – it was the ‘where’, and therefore it was quite in order to add vaping to the ‘where’. However, the attorney makes it clear, as I have already mentioned, that the ban is absolutely specific about smoke, and tobacco smoke at that. In the recorded conversation, the point is made that the whole point of the ‘one subject’ is to stop what the attorney called ‘log rolling’. You can see the meaning of that, can’t you? A log is heavy, and once it starts to roll, it is difficult to stop. Appending new laws to existing existing laws is ‘log rolling’.

Not only do I recommend that you listen to the audio, I also recommend that you listen all the way through. It is about an hour, but the call-in comments alert the attorney to further iniquities of the vaping ban. One such (which is close to my heart!) is that the vaping ban undermines the ‘moral high ground’ which vapers occupy by virtue of having stopped smoking. They have done the ‘right thing’, the ‘moral thing’, by stopping smoking, and now they have been prohibited from stopping smoking (by vaping instead)!

=======

The Zealots are so shifty that it would not surprise me one bit if the current squealing about PP and a ban on anyone born from 2000 on, even when adults, buying cigs is intended to distract attention from the EU virtually complete ban on ecigs. That ‘directive’ is so full of faults that it ought never have reached the Parliament. But MEPs voted in favour! That is crazy. Utterly crazy. Thus we see that the EU Parliament serves no real purpose other than voting for one alternative or another, both of which suit the Zealots very well. “Would you prefer that people  be executed by, a) being shot in the back of the head, b) being hung, c) being injected with a poison?” “Erm…. I would rather that people not to be executed” “NOT ACCEPTABLE! You must chose. If you do not choose, then you permit States to torture people to death”

======

It is clear to anyone who observes that the Tobacco Control Industry is in a total mess. When you think about it, it was always likely to be so, especially when it created for itself (and was allow to create) a MONOPOLY. It is obvious that, within such a monopoly, there are bound to be cheats and charlatans.

======

I would also have liked to talk about the blatherings of Anna Gilmore who works at the Bath University. Well, I assume that she actually works. There are some doubts that she actually works. Her latest blatherings are fully described at DP’s site:

http://dickpuddlecote.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/dont-listen-to-them-were-only-experts.html

She cried because the tobacco industry dared to contest the blandishments of the tobacco control zealots about the likely effects of PP. She wept that tobacco companies were permitted to contest tobacco control. The fact that tobacco control ‘science’ was mumbo-jumbo, witch-doctor magic was irrelevant as far as she was concerned. The mumbo-jumbo was enough, as she saw it, to devastate the whole concept of competition. Oh, by the way, here is Anna-darling’s qualification to speak:

Anna Gilmore qualified in medicine in 1991 and following training in general medicine and tropical diseases has pursued a career in public health. Her research falls into three main areas: ….”

Note the “tropical diseases”. That group has been the epicentre of anti-tobacco since Doll’s time.

======

But one must admit that these people are smart. I like the word ‘smart’ almost more than I like the word ‘clever’ to describe these people. I remember the days when Charles Atlas advertised in children’s comics. “Buy my book and have a body like mine in seven days!” he shouted at kids, complete with Adonis-type pics. Where were the likes of Anna Gilmore then? Erm … They were working with Doll et al on anti-tobacco, anti-alcohol eugenics.

=====

It would be interesting to know whether or not Anna Gilmore actually works. Did she produce her diatribe against tobacco company evidence to the the Chantler enquiry in her own time or in her paid time? Who paid her while she was examining the tobacco company evidence? Or did she do it in her own time at her own expense? There are shades of corruption there. But is is obvious that while the Education Dept is thrutching about with infant de-normalisation, then it will not have much time to deal with universities.

=====

Finally for tonight, think again about my local authority banning ‘personal vaporisers’. My council rep and chairman of the authority’s  ‘well-being’ committee has still not replied. That failure indicates that he believes that lies and deception are part and parcel of local government.

The poorest people are subsidising the most well off.

 

 

Advertisements

One Response to “New York ‘CLASH’ Has Filed the Lawsuit about the Ecig Ban”

  1. New York 'CLASH' Has Filed the Lawsuit about th... Says:

    […] For those who do not know, Bloomberg and his cronies on the New York City legislature enacted a ban on ecigs in bars etc as a last-gasp event before their term of office ended. All these people ceased to be members of the legislature within a month of the enactment. Unfortunately for them, in their rush, they overlooked a requirement in the New York ‘constitution’ that any law enacted must have only one subject. The smoking ban in bars etc was called “The Smoke-free Air Act” (or very similar). Indeed, further into the Act, the ban specifically stated that it referred to tobacco smoke. What Bloomberg and his henchmen did was simply to add “….. and electronic cigarettes” to the tobacco smoke ban. You could paraphrase it thus:  […]

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: