Smoke Ban in Wyoming

Ok what some of these representitves in this article below say makes sense to me!!  As a non smoker never smoked or considered it ...my dad was and I watched him daily and couldn't stand to see what it did to him.  As a non smoker I thought it was wrong when CO passed the no smoke ban even in bars.  I noticed emptier bars in the ones I went to after the ban one even eventually shut down...rode my first bull there...rofl.  As a non smoker I went into those bars BY CHOICE knowing there was cigarette smoke and as a non smoker I realized a bar is a place to unwind kick back and release stress from a crazy day or week.  Now I agree if I am going to be eating no I don't want to smell someones ciggy smoke sorry I would like to enjoy my meal, but come on a bar????  You want a "bar" so to speak w/o smoke open up a smokeless bar or something along those terms...wow a new business to help during these economical hardships to help boost the economy what a concept. I will still go where my friends are and if they are smokers which not many of my friends are and it happens to be in a bar then so be it but I will know there is a smokeless bar option.  People that choose to smoke do so knowing it is bad for them, some don't care life is short live it...some can't stop even after several attempts...dad fell into both of those. He started at 11yrs of age and said it is hard to stop something you enjoy doing that does become habit.  anyhow here is the article from the billings gazette:

Wyoming backs off strictest parts of smoking ban

By The Associated Press

CHEYENNE - The Wyoming House of Representatives on Friday backpedaled away from key provisions of a bill that would have imposed a statewide smoking ban.

A day after giving preliminary approval to a comprehensive statewide ban, the House voted Friday to amend House Bill 31 to exclude bars and restaurants from the ban as long as they serve only customers age 21 or older.

The amended version also excludes private offices from the ban, and would give local governments the choice of opting out of the ban.

Proponents of a smoking ban for all indoor public places, who had been successful Thursday in knocking out an exemption for bars, said they were disappointed with Friday's changes.

"We want a comprehensive, statewide ban in public places," said Dr. Eric Wedell of Cheyenne, co-chairman of Smoke-Free Wyoming. "The people of Wyoming favor this, but our legislators don't seem to recognize that."

The Wyoming State Liquor Association has lobbied hard against the bill, saying that bars stand to lose business if it's successful. Mike Moser, the association's executive director, said after Friday's vote that he is happy with the amendments.

"The Legislature acted in moderation to a middle ground that more fits what Wyoming has chosen and the more than 90 percent of Wyoming communities that have chosen to have no laws at all," Moser said. "We still don't support the bill, but this is a much better bill than it was two hours ago."

Debate in the House was divided between ban supporters who say it's necessary to protect public health and opponents who protest government intervention.

Rep. Mike Madden, R-Buffalo, presented the amendment to exempt bars and restaurants. It passed 34-25. He pointed out that smoking would not be allowed in a restaurant that admitted patrons younger than 21.

Rep. Jack Landon, R-Sheridan, called Madden's proposal a "rather elegant compromise." Landon said it's important to protect children because they don't have a choice whether they're exposed to smoke, but said the proposal would still preserve free will among adults.

Rep. Keith Gingery, R-Jackson, said the amendment doesn't address the issue of the health of employees who are forced in these tough economic times to take any job they can find.

Rep. Kermit Brown, R-Laramie, warned that granting exemptions for liquor establishments would result in the value of liquor licenses going up. "I don't think that it's the place of this Legislature to try to create a privileged class," he said.

Rep. Tom Lubnau, R-Gillette, presented the amendment to allow cities and counties to vote to opt out of the statewide ban. It passed 41-18.

"We are giving the people of Wyoming, if this bill passes and the amendment passes, a statewide smoking ban," Lubnau said, noting that it would take an affirmative vote for local governments to opt out.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a statewide smoking ban, but it has a back door," Lubnau said.

Only the cities of Cheyenne, Laramie and Evanston have enacted municipal smoking bans. Casper has rejected a proposed ban in the past.

Rep. Tim Stubson, R-Casper, said he doesn't like the prospect of the Legislature telling local governments what to do.

"The thing that rubs me the wrong way is it seems to me that we as a Legislature are reaching out and shoving something down the throat of every man and woman" in the state, Stubson said.

Rep. Seth Carson, D-Laramie, said it is appropriate for the Legislature to act on matters of public health.

He said science and knowledge of the dangers of smoking have developed in recent years, and he questioned whether the Legislature wanted to leave the issue to local governments.

Rep. Edward Buchanan, R-Torrington, sponsored the amendment to exempt private offices. It passed on a voice vote.

The House is scheduled to consider the bill again next week.

Copyright © 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Published on Saturday, January 31, 2009.
Last modified on 1/31/2009 at 12:31 am

Political headlines of the day

House GOP throws stimulus brushback

Posted: 01/28/2009

Obama couldn’t pry loose a single Republican vote.

U.S. HOUSE PASSES STIMULUS BILL
The U.S. House has passed an $819 billion economic stimulus
package on a party-line vote, despite U.S. President Barack
Obama's efforts to achieve bipartisan support for the bill. The
final vote was 244 to 188. No Republicans voted for the bill,
while 12 Democrats voted against it, CNNMoney.com reports. YET HE SEEMS TO BE PENCIL WHIPPING THIS SHIT THRU!!!!  Have I mentioned I really really LOATH this man!!  He may be a president to some but to me I see nothing but a Hitler era on the horizon!!!
.... http://edition.cnn.com/money/2009/01/28/news/economy/house_vote_wednesday/index.htm

Illegal Aliens to Get Stimulus Checks

Obama Caught Red-handed in Donor Scandal

»Obama 2.0 -- Volunteers of America or 2012 Campaign?

With the recent action of BO such as:

Closing Gitmo and CIA Prisons

Giving five billion tax dollars to his Acorn Radicals in Chicago

Shutting down all the Bush Government Policies and having nothing to take their place

Moving closer to the Islamic Theocracy

Playing games with Iran

Giving in to the Arabs that occupy Israelis West bank and Gaza Strip

Not having logged one good Policy since November Election

Taking on Rush and now softening up in an appeal to Conservatives for support

Much, Much More!!

This Cat is soft and lost in the Political Jungle.

Sure, he may arrest millions of Conservatives

Arresting any American for our belief in a Traditional Values America is defeat for BO

I rate him now as a "9" on a scale of "10" as a real threat to our Democracy

BO talks big but flows like any sewer ~~yeah that pretty much sums it up!!

House defeats bill to delay digital TV transition
Bucking the Obama administration, House Republicans on Wednesday defeated a bill to postpone the upcoming transition from analog to digital television broadcasting to June 12 - leaving the current Feb. 17 deadline intact for now.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28896344/

 U.S. HOUSE PASSES STIMULUS BILL

The U.S. House has passed an $819 billion economic stimulus
package on a party-line vote, despite U.S. President Barack
Obama's efforts to achieve bipartisan support for the bill. The
final vote was 244 to 188. No Republicans voted for the bill,
while 12 Democrats voted against it, CNNMoney.com reports.
....

Socialism ranting continued....PLEASE AMERICA WAAAAKE UP!!!

If there was ever any doubt that President NObama and the liberals
in Congress are pushing a radical socialistic agenda, the last
three days settled the debate.

Consider what has happened JUST since Friday:

--Liberals are now openly floating the idea of "nationalizing" our banks. Glad I closed our accounts months ago.
We expect a formal announcement of the nationalization of banks to
come AFTER Obama and the Democrats have the trillion-dollar stimulus
in their back pockets.

--Obama revoked the Reagan-era policy that prevented our tax dollars
from funding abortions overseas... the first step towards implementing
his radical abortion agenda.

--That same day, Obama directly attacked Rush Limbaugh and told
Republicans in Congress to stop listening to Rush -- the first
wave of attacks on conservative speech from this statist administration.

--Now Obama is demanding that we all agree to the trillion-dollar
stimulus, which is nothing more than a blank check for liberals to expand
government power!

--Democrats are stuffing the stimulus full of pork for liberal social
programs, including "hundreds of millions" for birth control and
family planning.

How is birth control an economic stimulus? According to Nancy Pelosi,
babies are costly! Here's the quote again to refresh your memory:

"Family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost.
The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of
what we do for children's health, education and some of
those elements are to help the states meet their financial
needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned,
the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the
federal government."

** WE MUST RESIST!!!!!!!

The liberal media and even some RINOs (Republicans in
Name Only) are saying we shouldn't oppose Obama's agenda.

Some are even challenging our patriotism for opposing these agenda items. Just like if you are against Obama you are a racist....fine guess I am racist if that is your definition of the word...now get over yourself. I CAN'T AND WON'T EVER SUPPORT THIS EVIL MAN WHO HAS NO business being president!

I need your help to send them a message that citizens -TRUE AMERICANS WILL take a stand.

**I do not know if this would be considered gossip, is a weekly newsletter I get from Grassfire.org. My blog -yesterday I also do not know of as gossip, is a link to pages on www.911weknow.com . I consider it news we need to know:) Inquiring minds want to know!

Ok getting off my soapbox now, driving to Idaho Falls depending on this crazy snow and then back to Rexburg and hope my nephew is closer to making his appearance!

PELOSI: LET'S REDUCE "COSTS" BY GETTING RID OF CHILDREN

As a pro-choice I am sickened by this obscene argument explaining why there are hundreds of millions of dollars for "family planning" services in the so-called stimulus bill. What does Nancy say? It's help because "it" will reduce costs the states have for children's education, health care, etc. Instead of arguing that families should start paying for their children instead of the state and federal governments, Obama (via Pelosi) argues the number of children are the problem, not the fact that government has simply gotten so massive it is now advocating eliminating those who are a 'drain' on "costs." This argument is a hallmark in socialist-fascist states, and now it's here.

Montanans SUPPORT House Bill 228

http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0228.htm This bill clarifies grey areas in the law that could result in damage to law abiding victims of crime who used a firearm in self defense.

Non law abiding citizens don't care if it is legal or not so protect yourself let your voice be heard so this bill can pass!!! Recently there was a shooting in Glasgow MT and you want to know what stopped it from getting worse a law abiding citizen with a consealed carry permit back the shooter down!! Look at Vermont and Alaska lowest gun crimes and they have very similar laws to this proposed one for Montana. Right now as the law is written you can't protect yourself with a gun even if someone comes and breaks into your house!! you will be the prey in which the police will go after.

"Criminals do not want an armed populace. Furthermore, the citizens do not want the government to strip of this right to keep and bear arms, because it is the gateway to keeping intact all the other rights that our Forefathers saw fit to pen into the Constitution. To eliminate the restrictive hold that law abiding citizens have that criminals already have is important. I hope it passes with great support. "

A side note I am a mom home alone with her 3 kids 4-5 days of the week at times 7 days a week weeks at a time I know for me this law would be of great comfort. My dog is a great alarm, but if it came down to it and I needed to protect myself and my children I need to know I am not going to be turned into the criminal because I shot an intruder.

" Sen. Larry Jent's ( SB 92) and Rep. Kendall Van Dyk's (HB 36) bills should be considered Fake Self-Defense Bills as they do not propose any substantial changes in the law. I believe they are feel good political attempts to make Jent and Van Dyk appear to be gun rights advocates.

Here are some links for those who like myself desire factual information on HB 228
The first link offers qualified explanations of each section of the bill and reasons the changes are needed. http://progunleaders.org/Self-defense/ Note Section's 1 and 11 as these may explain why certain prosecutors and police officials do not support HB 228 but instead have lent their support to the do nothing bills.

The complete text of Rep. Krayton Kerns bill HB 228 can be found at http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2009/billhtml/HB0228.htm

It also specifies that the presumption of iinnocence is in effect in Montana. Police and prosecutors always prefer if you have to prove your innocence, but our rights are best protected by the traditional view, that you do have the presumption of innocence.

The bill also establishes that you can carry a gun concealed by an article of clothing (the definition of "concealed") inside city limits in Montana, without a concealed carry permit. You already can do this in the big part of Montana that is outside of city limits. You can also currently carry a gun that is inside a purse or pack or briefcase (that is, not covered by an article of clothing) inside city limits without a permit, legally.

Some people dislike the idea of putting their name on a list of gun owners. That could potentially be unhealthy. (But some prefer to get the concealed carry license because a lot of other states have reciprocity agreements with Montana and they honor each other's permits. This is a good thing if you are travelling on the highways. A permit also makes it easier to purchase firearms. )

This is an important bill worthy of your active support. " Think about how much more tragic this recent incident could have been had there not been that one person with a consealed permit in the building and had their gun on their person! Most Montanans think this is already law here but it isn't....

Call and/or write your local legislators and ask them to support HB 228

To further discuss I saw this forum posted~ http://rtkba.com/forums/index.php?

If passed, the bill would, among other things: = allow people to carry a concealed weapon without a permit;

= greatly strengthen self-defense protections in the state;

= allow people to display their gun to deter an attack;

= allow people to use a gun whenever at risk of physical harm;

= and, in shooting incidents in which the person who fired the gun claimed self defense, require the state to prove that it was not.

2nd Oath is bugging me....lol

Another question....isn't is customary to use the FULL name of the president when he is being inaugurated? Why was just his middle initial use? Afraid of what message the word HUSSEIN sends?? That he is muslim and has NO business legally or otherwise being our president?? I am finding reports that he used nothing, but then saw something he used the Koran the 2nd time, but also found there is nothing stating they have to use a book at all.

Wikipedia says:

"Franklin Pierce was the only president to use the word affirm rather than swear. Theodore Roosevelt did not use a Bible when taking the oath in 1901. Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. John Quincy Adams swore on a book of law. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in on a Roman Catholic missal on Air Force One."

So I guess the Bible isn't a requirement?? I always thought it was so this was interesting research.

Well I guess there's only one solution to this. Obama and Roberts should take a crack at the oath a third time.

But this time, it's three strikes and YOUR OUT lol. They should both be sent packing. If you can't get 38 words right, on three tries, then there's gonna have to be another election sounds good to me anyhow. And the next President can appoint the new Chief Justice.
On another thought....I do believe in God. I'd rather him to not swear in on the Bible, if he doesn't intend to honor the oath. Which has been done by many of the people who have held the office before.

You know the more I stew over this when there are other issues bothering me right now like his "Right to Choose Act". I think this was all a set up. He could have made arrangements to swear in again on a bible...BUT he did not. I think this was to send a message to people that he did not swear in on a Bible the second time considering it is being considered the legal one. At ANY time he could have requested a Bible and the secret service or whomever could have got one for him. This speaks volumes in my mind.

Ok maybe I am picking everything apart because I LOATHE this man. BUT I do feel these are all very valid and important points that one needs to look at!!

The Obama Presidency: Here comes Socialism

The years 2009-2010 will rank with 1913-14, 1933-36, 1964-65, and 1981-82 as periods that permanently changed our government, politics, and lives. Just as the stars were aligned for Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, and Reagan, they are aligned for Obama.

Simply put, we enter his administration as free-enterprise, market-dominated, laissez-faire America. We soon will become like Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Sweden: a socialist democracy in which the government dominates the economy, determines private-sector priorities, and offers a vastly expanded range of services to many more people at much higher taxes.

Obama will accomplish his agenda of “reform” under the rubric of “recovery.” Using the electoral mandate bestowed on a Democratic Congress by restless voters and the economic power given his administration by terrified Americans, he will change our country fundamentally in the name of lifting the depression. His stimulus packages won’t do much to shorten the downturn, although they will make it less painful, but they will do a great deal to change our nation.

In implementing his agenda, Obama will emulate the example of Franklin D. Roosevelt. (Not the liberal mythology of the New Deal but the actuality of what it accomplished.) When FDR took office, he was enormously successful in averting a total collapse of the banking system and the economy. But his New Deal measures succeeded only in lowering the unemployment rate from 23 percent in 1933, when he took office, to 13 percent in the summer of 1937. It never went lower.

And his policies of over-regulation generated such business uncertainty that they triggered a second-term recession. Unemployment in 1938 rose to 17 percent and, in 1940, on the verge of the war-driven recovery, stood at 15 percent. (These data and the real story of and Roosevelt’s and Herbert Hoover’s missteps, uncolored by ideology, are available in “The Forgotten Man” by Amity Shlaes.)

But in the name of a largely unsuccessful effort to end the Depression, Roosevelt passed crucial and permanent reforms that have dominated our lives ever since, including Social Security, the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, unionization under the Wagner Act, the federal minimum wage, and a host of other fundamental changes.

Obama’s record will be similar, although less wise and more destructive. He will begin by passing every program for which liberals have lusted for decades, from alternative-energy sources to school renovations, infrastructure repairs and technology enhancements. These are all good programs, but they normally would be stretched out for years.

However, freed of any constraint on the deficit — indeed, empowered by a mandate to raise it as high as possible — Obama will do them all rather quickly.

But his spending is not what will transform our political system; rather, his tax and welfare policies will do the damage. In the name of short-term stimulus, he will give every American family (who makes less than $200,000) a welfare check of $1,000 euphemistically called a refundable tax credit. And he will cut taxes so sharply for the middle class and the poor that the number of Americans who pay no federal income tax will rise from one-third of all households to more than half.

In the process, he will create a permanent electoral majority that does not pay taxes, but counts on ever-expanding welfare checks from the government. The dependency on the dole, formerly limited in pre-Clinton days to 14 million women and children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children, will now grow to a clear majority of the American population.

Will he raise taxes? Why should he? With a congressional mandate to run the deficit up as high as need be, there is no reason to raise taxes now and risk aggravating the depression.

Instead, Obama will follow the opposite of the Reagan strategy. Reagan cut taxes and increased the deficit so that liberals could not increase spending. Obama will raise spending and increase the deficit so that conservatives cannot cut taxes. And, when the economy is restored, he will raise taxes with impunity, since the only people who will have to pay them would be rich Republicans.

In the name of stabilizing the banking system, Obama will nationalize it. Using Troubled Asset Relief Program funds to write generous checks to needy financial institutions, his administration will demand preferred stock in exchange. Preferred stock gets dividends before common stockholders do. With the massive debt these companies will owe to the government, they will be able to afford dividends only for preferred stockholders: the government, not private investors. So who will buy common stock?

And the government will demand that its bills be paid before any profits that might materialize are reinvested in the financial institution, so how will the value of the stocks ever grow? Devoid of private investors, these institutions will fall ever more under government control.

Obama will begin the process by limiting executive compensation. Then he will urge restructuring and lowering of home mortgages in danger of default (as the feds have done with Citibank).

Then will come guidance on the loans to make and government instructions on the types of enterprises to favor. God grant that some Blagojevich type is not in charge of the program, using his power to line his pockets. The United States will find itself with an economic system comparable to that of Japan, where the all-powerful bureaucracy at the Ministry of International Trade and Industry manages the economy, often making mistakes like giving mainframe computers priority over the development of laptops.

But the healthcare system will experience the most dramatic and traumatic of changes. The debate between erecting a Medicare-like governmental single payer or channeling coverage through private insurance misses the essential point. Without a lot more doctors, nurses, clinics, equipment, and hospital beds, health resources will be strained to the breaking point. The people and the equipment that now serve 250 million Americans and largely neglect all but the emergency needs of the other 50 million now will have to serve everyone.

As government imposes ever-more-Draconian price controls and income limits on doctors, the supply of practitioners and equipment will decline as the demand escalates. Price increases will be out of the question, so the government will impose healthcare rationing, denying the older and sicker among us the care they need and even barring them from paying for it themselves. (Rationing based on income and price will be seen as immoral.)

And Obama will move to change permanently the partisan balance in America. He will move quickly to legalize all those who have been in America for five years, albeit illegally, and to smooth their paths to citizenship and voting. He will weaken border controls in an attempt to hike the Latino vote as high as he can to make red states like Texas into blue states like California.

By the time Obama is finished, Latinos and blacks will cast a combined 30 percent of the vote. If they go by top-heavy margins for the Democrats, as they did in 2008, it will assure Democratic domination (until they move up the economic ladder and become good Republicans).

And he will enact the check-off card system for determining labor union representation, repealing the secret ballot in union elections. The result will be to raise the proportion of the labor force in unions up to the high teens from the present level of about 12 percent.

Finally, he will use the expansive powers of the Federal Communications Commission to impose “local” control and ownership of radio stations and to impose the “fairness doctrine” on talk radio. The effect will be to drive talk radio to the Internet, fundamentally change its economics, and retard its growth for years hence.

But none of these changes will cure the depression. It will end when the private sector works through the high debt levels that triggered the collapse in the first place. And, then, the large stimulus package deficits will likely lead to rapid inflation, probably necessitating a second recession to cure it.

So Obama’s name will be mud by 2012, probably by 2010. And the Republican Party will make big gains and regain much of its lost power.

But it will be too late to reverse the socialism of much of the economy, the demographic change in the electorate, the rationing of healthcare by the government, the surge of unionization, and the crippling of talk radio.

© 2009 Newsmax. All rights reserved.