From a letter to the editor;

To those who oppose the ban because they think it is some kind of way for the government to control your lives, give me a break. Why don’t you try to quit? You soon will realize how much a single cigarette runs your life. Then we’ll talk about control.

Yeah! I only let big tobacco control my life not the government!

This kind of reminds me of how the Bed & Booze tax Events Center funding source mysteriously disappeared – it is no secret the Hospitality and Beverage industry beat the shit out of the EC Task Force to drop the funding source. It kind of looks like they are doing a number in the SD court system to;

The testimony began after Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled that the smoking ban passed by the Legislature is eligible to be referred to voters. The opposite ruling would have settled the case, but now the court system must determine whether opponents collected enough valid signatures to put it on next year’s ballot.

Okay, I know that the judge only ruled that IT CAN be referred to the voters, IF, the signatures are valid. But we know where this is going . . . I have followed politics long enough in this state to know who runs the show, and it isn’t the little man.

UPDATE: What did a freaking tell yah.

I found this part of the judge’s decision troubling;

Nelson, though, said the ruling on substantial compliance and Trandahl’s decision to allow signatures from people on the inactive voter list to be considered valid set troubling precedents and might lead to him arguing for an appeal.

“Apparently, you don’t need a notary seal, and inactive voters can sign a petition, and we’ve got a statute that says that’s not the case,” Nelson said.

Why don’t we just let monkey’s sign petitions from now on. Once again, South Dakota proves it’s motto, “Big Business first, people second.”

Dear Advocate,

I wanted to share a brief summary of where things stand regarding the smoke free law lawsuit.

The smoke free law lawsuit will be heard by the circuit court judge on November 12th. The hearing will cover a variety of issues raised by the opponents of the smoke free law concerning the validity of the signatures they turned in as well as the legal argument by the American Cancer Society and our partners with the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network that the law is not referrable because of the constitutional clause that prohibits referring laws that are for the immediate preservation of public health.

The judge will hear legal arguments on the referability issue first and if she agrees with us, the trial will conclude and the law, in theory, would go into effect. We are expecting there to be an appeal from the circuit court regardless of the outcome and the implementation of the law will likely be delayed pending all legal steps.

If the judge does not agree with us about the referability issue, the trial will focus on the petition signatures to determine if, in fact, the opponents gathered enough valid signatures to place the law on the 2010 ballot. The issues that will be examined in this area have to do with proper notarization, lack of complete information, and other areas in which we contend the petitions are deficient. Depending on how many of these signatures are ultimately deemed valid, the judge will either rule that the law does not get referred or that the law is referred until the November 2010 election.

This is a big picture summary, as there are many technical issues to be determined during this process. The American Cancer Society and the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network will be part of the process and will offer our legal arguments and insight as appropriate to help the judge make a determination on the issues outlined above.

If you have specific questions, please let me know.

___________________
Erik Gaikowski
Senior Field Government Relations
American Cancer Society
4904 South Technopolis
Sioux Falls, SD 57106
1.800.660.7703
605.323.3545

Help make South Dakota smoke free, visit our website http://www.smokefreesd.com

Besides a non-story about Brendan Johnson’s law

голова болит секс firm getting a measley $100,000 for losing him and another non-story about the American Cancer Society being able to argue in court against the bar owner smokey-smokey pants crybabies, there isn’t much going on.

However, I have been writing some new bar humor toons for a possible project, here is a sample;

“The bartender just made me the perfect martini.”

“Gin? Vodka? Straight up? Extra dry?”

голова болит секс

“FREE.”

Looks like a double-whammy to me, a cologne bottle shaped like a pipe

Sometimes I read letters to the editor, scratch my head (and my balls) and go . . . WTF?

I don’t like cigarettes, but perfumes and colognes bother me more, so do we outlaw the use of them in public for those with allergies or asthma’s convenience?

Hey, jackass, did cologne kill 400,000 people last year?

ORIGINAL POST

What bothers me is that they failed in their petition drive. Why reward that failure? I have said they have a right to challenge the outcome, but until they can prove the petitions are legal (which they are not as of right now) the law should go into affect. Once again, South Dakota has proved once again – Business first, citizens second.

When SB2 was passed in 2007,great debate raged about who should determine if a petition was substantially complete. It was decided by the legislature that the decision on substantial compliance should be left with the court. Secretary Nelson cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. The Attorney General cannot determine substantial compliance only a court can do so. What is it about this relatively simlple concept that you fail to grasp?

Larry Mann

Well, Larry, I’m no Secretary of State or a judge for that matter, but I do know one thing about petitions, since I was involved in a drive. They must be notarized by a registered notary, not someone who ‘once was’ a notary. It’s kind of like any legal position, you must keep up with your registrations, or you lose them. Like a driver’s license, for example. Seems pretty simple to me. And BTW, that is the ‘LAW’ not a “TECHNICALITY’. Nice try at trying to spin the truth.

Really? Are their caseloads so f’ing deep they cannot rule on a simple case? If you are not a registered notary, your notarization does not count. Is that something that needs months of review and speculation? I find this delay to be a sick and pathetic joke, and it pains me that my taxdollars go towards these judges salaries (KELO TV):

The trial has been delayed in the fight over whether South Dakota’s smoking ban should be put to a statewide
public vote next year.

The trial originally was scheduled for August 24, but has been moved to October 26 in Fort Pierre.  Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl also will hold a hearing on September 11 to deal with some issues in the lawsuit.

After the Legislature passed a law expanding the smoking ban to bars and casinos, opponents submitted petition signatures to put the issue on next year’s election ballot. Secretary of State Chris Nelson eventually ruled that the issue could not go onto the ballot because more than 8,000 signatures were invalid.

Opponents of the ban want the judge to order Nelson to put the issue on the ballot.

Go figure, Mark Barnett awarded a stay;

In a lawsuit regarding an attempt to put the ban up to a public vote, Circuit Judge Mark Barnett today granted a motion to stay the ban.

A coalition opposing the legislation asked for the stay, and the state did not oppose it.

What bothers me is that they failed in their petition drive. Why reward that failure? I have said they have a right to challenge the outcome, but until they can prove the petitions are legal (which they are not as of right now) the law should go into affect. Once again, South Dakota has proved once again – Business first, citizens second.

I do agree the smoking ban foes have a right to challenge the validity of their petitions, but if SOS Chris Nelson invalidates the petition on Monday, I think the law should go into affect immediately (August 1);

The attorney general thinks that, “as a practical matter,” a judge then will enter a stay preventing the smoking ban from being implemented until the case is heard, which could take weeks or months.

I often agree with AG Long, but I think he is wrong on this one. If the state says something is ‘invalid’ then the law must go forward. If the courts find the petition legal, then they can reverse the law. This will be tied up in courts for months on end, trust me on this one. What irks me about the court case is that South Dakotans who overwhelmingly support a smoking ban have to wait around while lawyers have a pissing match. Like I said above, I am all for the match, the law needs to be clarified, but we shouldn’t put our lives and rights on hold while a couple of bar owners piss and moan they are being denied their liberty (that argument still makes me laugh my balls off). Bars don’t sell ’smoke’ they sell ‘alcohol’ your liberties are not being taken away, STFU and deal with it. I also find it ironic that the same bar owners who say they will lose money if a ban goes into affect have all kinds of money for a lawsuit. Of course the tobacco industry is probably funneling money into the suit, but we will never know.