If you listen to my program you know that one of my best supporters and advertisers is Sadeeh the owner of Avva Cigars. If you have never met him, let me tell you, he is one of the kindest, gentlest, sweetest men I have ever known. He will do anything for anyone. Complete strangers are always welcomed with open arms by him.
Well as you may or may not know, when the Workplace Smoking Ban Statute was put into place on January 1st of this year, Sadeeh filed the necessary paperwork for an exemption (which is in the statute) as a smoke shop. He met the four criteria for being exempt. The State "lost" that paperwork.
So, come August, September and October the State then filed 3 complaints against the store for "violating" the law. Sadeeh RE-Filed the paperwork and hand delivered it along with supporting documents and more.
Tonight, he received a call from the lady at the Department of Health and Human Services, Jill Thompson and one of her underlings. They told Sadeeh his application was denied because the door from his store into the Lancaster Mall was too close to the food court. It's a long story but, trust me, it's over 50 yards AND the store has a reverse airflow that actually sucks the Mall air into the store, meaning NO smoke EVER goes into the Mall.
This State Worker also told Sadeeh that it was her "goal to end all smoking in Oregon" and when he asked who he could appeal to, she said "me" and informed him that "she would continue to deny it".
So, what is he to do?
If you care at all, even if you can't stand smoke, you have to believe in the rights of a business to do business. His business is down CONSIDERABLY since he shut down the smoking.
This is not about smoke it is about FREEDOM!!
Please support him with calls, emails and visits, even if you don't smoke cigars, please!
The number is 503-585-5807 and email is: info@avvacigars.com
This story is NOT over, my friends in the talk radio business are going to work together to defeat the Liberals who HATE our freedoms and WE WILL WIN!!
Thank you,
bill
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Freedom of Choice at Avva Cigars
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
So you don't think smoking is harmful to your health? And if you want freedom for everyone on these types of issues, are you in favor of legalizing marijuana?
Ok Matt, first of all you have raised a really rediculous comparison.
The Oregon Workplace Smokefree Statue Revised says that "smoke shops" are exempt if they file the proper paperwork and meet the four criteria. This store has done that.
What would that POSSIBLY have to do with smoking pot???
I agree with the Smokefree Workplace Law and I think that all businesses who are not exempt from the law, should keep the law.
As for legalizing marijuana, that is a whole other story.
It has everything to do with it. I'm in favor of allowing people to smoke in smoke shops. But you are saying that this is affecting liberty and somehow equating to freedom. If you want real liberty and freedom, you would be in support of legalizing marijuana for those that want the freedom to enjoy it and allow marijuana dispensaries to sell it. Or am I off base here?
Blunt, you are off base.
Marijuana effects brain function in a way that tobacco absolutely does not. People who smoke pot are dangerous to others, where as cigar smokers are not.
This is from the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard:
"In the short term, marijuana use impairs perception, judgment, thinking, memory, and learning; memory defects may persist six weeks after last use. Mental disorders connected with marijuana use merit their own category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) IV, published by the American Psychiatric Association. These include Cannabis Intoxication (consisting of impaired motor coordination, anxiety, impaired judgment, sensation of slowed time, social withdrawal, and often includes perceptual disturbances; Cannabis Intoxication Delirium (memory deficit, disorientation); Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Delusions; Cannabis Induced Psychotic Disorder, Hallucinations; and Cannabis Induced Anxiety Disorder."
Although there are systems in development, there is currently no way law enforcement can effectively test for impairment due to marijuana use. Couple that with the fact that the mental impairment can last up to six weeks (rather than a short time like alcohol), and I think marijuana should not be legalized.
I see your point Bob, but why is alcohol legal and marijuana is not? The effects of both are equally dangerous to others, are they not? My point is, there is a growing number of people who want marijuana legalized in the way that alcohol is and if you are for freedom and liberty, how can you justify legalizing one over the other?
For every study you find that says pot is dangerous, I can find one that says it isn't. How are people on marijuana a danger to others?
And there was that cute little word used in front of a so-called fact..."may" last up to six weeks to which you later omitted saying it was now somehow a fact. If alcohol is legal, why can't pot also be legal?
Bill...your freedom rant comes across as biased to begin with. Noting that Avva Cigars is your largest advertiser and supporter, your "personal" interest becomes clouded by the potential loss of revenue for your show. Much like the health industry being in the pockets of Senators and Congressmen that fund their campaigns. Secondly, we hear ONLY your version of the details secondhand. What were the 4 criteria for being exempt? By his or YOUR opinion were they met?....list them! For the record..COMPLAINTS of smoking violations are FILED by citizens,workers,adjoining business,etc. AFTER receiving the complaint the County and State investigate in specific procedural ways. The rights of a business to DO business does not supercede law, health or potential revenue lost! While i am sure Sadeeh may be a nice person, THAT is NOT a reason to allow violations to the law.
Placator:
the four criteria are listed in the story but I will repeat them and they aren't by my definition. They are the statute.
1 - No one under 18 allowed in.
2 - No Oregon Lottery games played
3 - 75% or more of the income must be tobacco or tobacco related
4 - Store must be "free standing".
The fourth is what the DHS is sticking on. The owner has submitted all paperwork including the blueprints for the building demonstrating that his store is separated from the mall by all four sides. In fact, the store is a remodel of a liquor store that was built before the mall expanded, the only thing the mall and the store share are the roof.
No, my rant is this: the employee at the DHS said specifically to the owner of the shop "I want ALL smoking to end in Oregon". Now who has the agenda here?
If this story gets to Lars Larson, all hell will break loose at the DHS and that is the LAST thing they want right now. Trust me, they have bigger fish to fry.
Again, heresay and second hand information, subject to interpretation or even taken out of context. Either way irrelevant to the fact that complaints are FILED by individuals, adjoining business, workers etc. The County and State THEN ACT upon those complaints in a procedural way and investigate. NOT by any stretch of the imagination is Avva a free standing business when one of its doors OPENS INTO the MALL! Common sense dictates what we all know is meant by freestanding! Avva Cigars has the "FREEDOM" to move his business to an appropriate location! Problem solved!
Again the ONLY thing that the mall and the shop share is the roof. The store's site was a stand alone liquor store just a few years ago and now is attached via the roof...but really what is YOUR agenda Placator?
Let's forget smoking for a minute. This isn't about smoke it's about the State's control of ALL of our lives. This was not voted for BY the People. The people have spoken with the money they are now spending at the Lottery's expense to the Indian Casinos.
Also, what do you care? Will you be walking into the store?
When I go into the mall I am assaulted by the smell of ground acrylic at the nail parlor and the ammonia from the hair parlor. Those are both DANGEROUS to my health. Obviously though, the State of Oregon does not have a strong stance on those "health" issues. I want MY air protected.
How is Avva NOT attached to other businesses??? The documentation, visual aids, etc is to VERIFY it is a stand-alone business. His is NOT! Btw...no i do not work for DHS..wish i did tho!!
Well Mr. Bill, I care because those "freedoms" you claim to want to protect at any cost (public health, duh.. tobacco kills)is only when it benefits YOU or your particular agenda. NOT caring is exactly the reason the economy, unemloyment, healthcare reform, etc is in its current dismal state!Why do YOU care that i care?!! My "agenda" is that i care about the future!!!
at least post the responses that are sent! Your accusations and rants reveal your insecurities. Accuse me of working for the state...then say i don't know the statutes? Which is it? Your personal "Freedom" complaints are self-serving and selective to your agenda. Your bothered by nail and hair salons? Do Something then..get involved, take it to the state like people did for a smokefree workplace! Your question about WHY do I care and what's my agenda!!?? Because I CARE about health and citizens and future generations. Why do YOU care that I care!!?????? NOT caring is a prime example of the sorry dismal state of the economy and healthcare reform!!! THAT Mr. Bill is WHY I care!
Blunt, the only "may" is used in reference to how long marijuana effects mental capacity - it may be as long as six weeks after use.
The reason alcohol is legal and marijuana is not is that the effects of alcohol wear off relatively quickly, and have no lasting impact, whereas marijuana's effects on mental capacity do not wear off.
I know people who began to use it recreationaly, and I can tell a difference. They have a harder time concentrating and focusing than before.
The danger to others is when the person goes into public with diminished mental capabilities - such as driving.
placator: I think the owner (whom I know personally) should simply move to a site that is inarguably "free standing."
Yeah, everything in your narrow world and agenda that does not go YOUR way is because of Democrats. An imbecile would know (had there been a vote)that it would have passed anyhow! Your comparing serious potential tobacco related deaths past and future to not going in to a pet store because pet hair bothers you? Pathetic. The door OPENS to the Mall! His side wall/walls attaches to neighboring business! Complaints were filed! Why should he be an exception?! Other smoking shops that stand alone have complied and been granted the status! What is difficult to understand about a statute that states... a stand-alone business with NO other businesses or residential property ATTACHED to the PREMISES! Self explanatory. Your Democrats and freedom paranoia sees EVERYTHING as a conspiracy! AGAIN, he can move his business to a stand-alone appropiate location. Ultimately, this was brought to attention by complaints of smoke from citizens to be enforced. That is their FREEDOM right! Right? RIGHT????
Guaranteed....hmmmmm we will see, won't we???!
So, Bob, are you really going to tell me that alcohol doesn't have long-term effects? You are joking, right? As to the motivational/concentration factor, I know many doctors, lawyers, judges, and other professionals who smoke it daily and seem to be just fine but i don't count that as science...
As to my original point, if this is about freedom and liberty, why not let people smoke it and dispense it while regulating it like alcohol? As Bill said in one of his responses, this is about the government telling you how to live your life and taking control of us...
And, Bill, if you share a roof, that is not a separate building. And if one of the doors opens into the mall, that is not a separate building. I understand wanting to protect your sponsor, but you are wrong on this so just admit it and move on. This is almost as bad as the last time this came up and you actually said, "I enjoy the health benefits of cigars". I'm still laughing at that one...
A state worker with an agenda to end all smoking in Oregon with the power to destroy a mans business?
These people can be cut when the voters speak and vote NO on Measure 66 & 67. The legislature does enough to destroy business in Oregon they don't need any help from the minnions.
The legislature voted this stupid law into effect and have paid dearly in losses to lottery, unemployment and payroll taxes.
Blunt, in moderate amounts, alcohol actually has very positive effects on the human body. The chemical resveratrol found in red wine has been shown to reduce the occurrence of tumors and is a powerful antioxidant. New research is showing that moderate amounts of beer reduces the chances of arterial diseases and may help protect bone density.
So yes, I would say alcohol has long-term effects - positive ones in moderation.
That said, you seem to have missed my point. Research is showing that marijuana use has detrimental cognitive effects, such that marijuana use poses a danger to others. That is why it should not be legal. It is not a matter of "government telling you how to live your life and taking control of us." It is about the basic purpose of government, public safety.
I see your point Bob. And I'm well aware that alcohol can have positive effects in moderation. However, my point is that the original post was about freedom to choose. We know that smoking has nothing but negative effects on the body. Cigarette and cigar smoke is harmful to others. You would have to be completely naive to think that people aren't going to abuse alcohol. My point is, if you are going to trust adults to use alcohol in moderation, why not allow adults to choose marijuana in moderation? People are going to use it anyway, so why not legislate it and regulate it like we do with alcohol?
I suppose we aren't going to agree, but as an adult, if I can drink beer and enjoy its positive effects, why can't I enjoy marijuana in the pursuit of my own happiness making sure I don't endanger others in the process?
I understand the point you are making, though I disagree that it is clear that cigar smoking is nearly as harmful as cigarette smoking (for a variety of reasons).
My point is that, unlike alcohol - which is broken down very quickly by the body - marijuana stays in the system for perhaps as long as a month after use (not to mention is possibly seven times worse than a cigarette). Moreover, there is no reliable way for police officers to check if a person is under the influence of marijuana. These factors, combined with the fact that marijuana impairs judgment and cognitive skills to me makes it too dangerous to allow people to freely use it.
The "people are doing it anyway" argument doesn't hold water - participation does not make something correct or right.
You and Bill are pretty funny on this. Bill says he enjoys the "health benefits" of cigars and you say that cigar smoke is not as harmful as cigarette smoke. That just made my day. As I said, we are not going to agree on this, but Prohibition was repealed for the same reasons: it is easier to regulate and decriminalize than to continue to fight a War on Drugs that is a clear and evident failure. And we can both find study after study that support our positions on this...
Blunt, for someone who prides themselves with their intellect, you sure miss a lot. I said cigar SMOKING is not as dangerous as cigarette SMOKING. If cigarette smokers would not inhale, and smoke less frequently, cigarettes would be far less dangerous too.
As far as repealing Prohibition vs. decriminalizing marijuana, you may be right. Cocaine is a huge problem too, and it used to be legal. Surely you would be fine with re-legalizing it as well? How about Heroine? LSD?
If we legalize marijuana, how are we going to regulate the gangs and organized cartels from importing it?
Since law enforcement cannot spot check for marijuana intoxication, how are we to keep the public safe from people who are high while driving, operating heavy equipment, pilots, etc.?
Perhaps we could revisit the issue if we can find a reliable way to check for intoxication, but as it stands, we cannot.
I wasn't able to tell what I missed. You think cigar smoke is not as dangerous as cigarette smoke. I disagree, but since I'm not a research scientist I will drop that part of the questioning.
To your points about legalization, I'm in favor of legalizing all vices. Drugs, gambling, and prostitution. As I said, the argument was born out of Bill saying that this was attack on freedom, so let's have the ultimate freedom and legalize all of it. I'm aware of the consequences, but let's let people exhibit their freedom of choice.
Decriminalizing and making it legal would effectively end the need for cartels to smuggle weed into our country. We could license growers to provide it to the distributors and that would end the reliance on the gangs to import. They would have to find a new criminal enterprise other than marijuana...
I'm very worried, as are you, that people will not act responsibly if these things were legal. But, where do you want to draw the line? People can't be tested on the road for prescription drugs, yet they are regulated and legal. i see marijuana as the same thing and you don't. But, by your comments, you seem to be much more of a liberal in that line of thinking whereby you don't trust people to make the right decisions so the government has to do that for them by making these vices illegal, right?
Although I never said anything about the smoke itself, hand-made quality cigars do not have the fillers cigarettes do, so yes the smoke from cigars is less dangerous. However, I will repeat, the think that makes cigarettes so bad is that you inhale the smoke. The VAST majority of cigar smokers do not inhale. That fact alone makes cigars less dangerous than cigarettes. In fact, a National Cancer institute study found that those who smoked 1-2 cigars a day were at slightly less risk for lung cancer thannon-smokers.
As for weed, I suppose we could sell weed at the pharmacy and include warnings like, "Do not drive or operate heavy machinery from three hours to three weeks after use. May cause distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch), problems with memory and learning, loss of coordination, trouble with thinking and problem-solving, sleeplessness, increased heart rate, reduced blood pressure, anxiety, fear, distrust, or panic. May increase risk of heart attack. May decrease kidney function. Use of marijuana increases risk of throat and lung cancer, increases the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors, and may lead to depression, suicidal ideation, and schizophrenia. Can produce an acute psychotic reaction. Long-term marijuana abuse can lead to addiction. May lead to temporary male and female sterility. DO NOT use while pregnant or nursing."
I don't think the FDA would allow marijuana to be sold to the public with this long a list of dangers, but if they did, they would have to test and certify that the weed from the producer is safe and does what it is intended to do.
Would you be in support of that kind of regulation for weed?
You might be right about the cartels and weed. Since I doubt they'd simply give up their illegal activities, they'd likely increase trafficking in other illegal drugs.
There's a study that states cigar smoking rduces your chances of lung cancer over a non-smoker? That seems odd but I will take your word for it. As for the disclaimer, I am in favor of one. Since there is no definitive proof and your disclaimer is full of the word "may" and not "does" leaves the door wide open. As I said, the FDA allows an innumerable amount of pharmaceuticals to be legal that have some very serious side effects as well.
My issue is the same. Why not decriminalize it? Allow it to be sold with your disclaimer and let the adults decide if they want it or not. That is, after all, real freedom, isn't it? And that's what the original post stated. So, since I love freedom in spite of being a so-called liberal, let's practice it and not let the government continue to waste billions on a futile War on Drugs.
Would you be okay with that?
Post a Comment