Posts: 4,036
Threads: 607
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
21
Dear Audrey,
I'm a little embarrased to say that I forgot to donate (until today)! I've been so busy lately that it really slipped my mind. Thank you for posting a reminder!
Please let me know that you received the donation, as it was electronic through your PayPal account.
Stuff like this is important to everyone who smokes cigars! We all know that these laws always originate in NY or CA, then the other states follow with similar crap. Not to mention these same guys are really trying to stop tobacco shipments on a Federal level too. IF that happens... no more cigars by any carrier. You will be required to visit your local tobacco store and hope that they have the cigars that you want. We all know that its impossible for any store to carry everything, so your selection will be limited as well as your price shopping.
Donate a little if you can spare it. NYCCLASH is doing this for us, the smokers everywhere...not just NY!
-Eric
Posts: 152
Threads: 28
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
Consider contacting Cigar Magazine, Smoke Magazine, Cigar Aficinado, J & R Cigars, Cigars INTL, Holt's Cigar, as well as other smoker's right's groups or P.A.C.s. YOu would have to regiser, but it would give you the ability to gain more attention and possibly the funds needed to continue the fight. Since you already have an in with Cigar Aficinado, I think that may be the best place to start.
Just my couple of cents. Take it for what its worth.
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
Kind, kind Eric,
You couldn't possibly be more embarrassed for forgetting than I was for asking.
So yes, I did receive your donation. Normally I would acknowledge it in a private email to the donor but since you asked about it here I'll answer here which also gives me the opportunity to let everyone else know about your generous contribution and to thank you in public. With additional appreciation for your help by encouraging support from others with your words.
Why do I picture you wearing a rally cap? :-)
Ruggy -- What you suggest goes without saying. Can't seem to get past their receptionists though. Time for plan B (i.e. being less timid in my request to speak to "the person in charge" and/or how I try to contact them) which I've already started to implement.
Audrey
NYC C.L.A.S.H.
Posts: 152
Threads: 28
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
I would suggest contacting the person you spoke to who published the original article for you. Also, consider scheduling an interview with Shanken. If you say you want to do an interview, you may get a kind ear. Lastly, sending a personalized letter to him (or anyone else) via FEDEX or UPS overnight mail to his personal attention also goes a long way. However, last time I did this, in 1996, it was only around 9.00 to send an overnight letter. It is now like 28.00 or something via UPS. So that may be a bit expensive.. But it may be worth it...
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
I'm finally back with news. I want to thank everyone for their patience. It took a little longer than expected (but what doesn't, right? <sheesh>) but....
TA DA!
The lawsuit was filed today, July 6th!
No point in me taking up valuable space here with the details. The press release explaining it all can be found at http://www.nycclash.com/NYSFairLawsuitPressRelease-070607.html
What was also a bit unfortunate about the timing is that it wasn't until this afternoon and on a Friday yet. So the papers weren't notified until near 3:30pm. So far the Syracuse Post-Standard has responded and we expect their paper to report it on Saturday. I hold on to some hope that more calls will ensue tomorrow or by Monday.
Everyone please start rubbing your good luck charms or smoking your luck-bringing cigars <grin>. Then throw money <ducking n running> :-)
Audrey Silk, NYC C.L.A.S.H.
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
Here's the article from the Syracuse Post-Standard
Smoking mad
Vendor files lawsuit challenging as "discriminatory" a recently added state fairgrounds rule.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
By Delen Goldberg [b]Staff writer [/b]
A new rule at the New York State Fair has Michael Tarnowicz burning up.
Visitors this year will be able to drink beer, eat deep-fried Twinkies and smoke in designated areas, but they won't be able to buy cigars from Tarnowicz, a Connecticut-based vendor who has peddled tobacco at the fair for the past 10 years.
Organizers denied Tarnowicz a license to sell cigars this year. The reason: State and local officials banned the sale of tobacco products at fairgrounds events in an effort to make New York the healthiest state in the nation.
Tarnowicz doesn't plan on being stamped out without a fight. He filed a lawsuit Friday in Albany County Supreme Court challenging the decision, calling it "arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory."
"It seems ironic that they want to be the health police, but the sale of unhealthy food and alcohol is free flowing," said Tarnowicz, owner of Connecticut Valley Tobacconist in Enfield, Conn.
The lawsuit names Dan O'Hara, executive director of the fair, and Patrick Hooker, state agriculture commissioner, as defendants.
The lawsuit is supported by NYC Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, a smokers'
rights group.
O'Hara declined to comment on the lawsuit Friday, saying his "lawyers will handle it accordingly." Calls to Hooker's office were not immediately returned.
David Novak, an Albany lawyer representing Tarnowicz, said the lawsuit centers on the ideas of fair trade and people's right to choose.
"They're allowing people to bring their own tobacco products onto the fairgrounds and smoke them, but they're not allowing my client to sell cigars in a sealed container," Novak said. "How does it contribute to an unhealthy environment to be walking around with a cigar box?"
"There's simply no law on the books that prevents tobacco from being sold to adults," Novak added. "It has nothing to do with whether you think tobacco is healthy or unhealthy. As long as there's no law making tobacco an illegal product, people should have a right to purchase it."
-----------------------------------------
The link to the article is here: http://www.syracuse.com/articles/news/index.ssf?/base/news-11/1183798867160600.xml&coll=1
They're taking comments on it so if anyone wants to lend moral support can add their own there.
Audrey
Posts: 3,279
Threads: 231
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
8
Nice to see the fight's being taken up and a little press is coming your way! I hope this leads to some rational regulation as opposed to what we're getting now. Good luck and keep us posted!
Posts: 11
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2007
Reputation:
0
Update on NYS Fair Cigar Sales Ban Suit
Out of the courtesy due all of you that have been supportive or shown an interest (and even those that didn't) I take this space to inform you of the outcome of the lawsuit filed by a cigar vendor, and sponsored by my organization, when the NYS Fair decided to ban all sales of tobacco products on the fairgrounds.
The judge dismissed our case on grounds I'll explain in a minute.
Though the decision was rendered on August 23rd I held off on the notification while we explored our options and decided on them. That way it could be given to you all at once.
I/We never pretended that it would surprise us if we lost but felt this was the firmest grounds we've been on in regard to a lawsuit than in cases past. So though not shocking, it was very dismaying.
The grounds for the dismissal rests almost entirely on this line: "[Defendants] are expressly authorized... to deny a vendor's license... under certain circumstances. Specifically applicable here is the PUBLIC POLICY exception." (emphasis mine)
The other relevant excerpts of the decision are these:
"It is undisputed that a tobacco policy exists in New York State... [Defendants] have demonstrated...that permitting the sale of tobacco products...would be contrary to PUBLIC POLICY."
"[T]he court finds [the ban and denial of license] was not arbitrary and capricious, and was thus rationally based"
"[Defendant] O'Hara avers that 'based upon New York State's policy concerning tobacco and tobacco products, it made little sense for the State Fair to make tobacco products available for purchase during the State Fair, while the New York State Department of Health was promoting cessation of smoking.' Additionally, defendants submit proof of New York's tobacco policy and its efforts in furtherance of such policy, including a report from the Department of Health addressing tobacco use in the State as well as information on statewide efforts and programs promulgated under the policy. Because defendants [actions] has a rational basis before the court, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious and, therefore, will not be disturbed."
I've summed it up this way:
The judge concluded that the existence of a "public policy" adopted by the state to control tobacco is enough to allow them the authority to deny a license to sell tobacco ("especially" on state run grounds) in furtherance of the goal of their policy. In the same light, the judge determined that a rational basis existed and thus was not an arbitrary and capricious act. No matter that they didn't also ban smoking or any other "unhealthy" (e.g. fried foods) items, the ban on the sale of tobacco adheres to the "public policy" the state Dept. of Health has established.
Once again, in another extremely disturbing way, all it takes is for the state to declare what will be and for everyone to have to fall in line with no choice. "Public Policy" is determined NOT by the public but by paternalistic agents in government -- both elected AND appointed.
After receiving and weighing expert advice, and on our own opinions in addition to that, WE HAVE DECIDED TO APPEAL. (And has been noted by a reporter at the Syracuse Post-Standard at http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/09/tobacco_vendors_lawsuit_dismis.html)
Not that we have the funds for it but we'll worry about that later. After filing our notice of intent, we have the luxury of nine months to submit the actual appeal.
Meanwhile, never doubt that the slippery slope bell we ring is not real. Reported on September 6th was this:
"State Fair Director Dan O'Hara thought a photo [the picture won a blue ribbon in the Fair's 2007 Photography Exhibition] of a smoking blow-up sex doll was inappropriate. It was the cigarette, not the sex."
O'Hara made them take it down, saying, "I believe that it wasn't in keeping with the fair's policy, which is not to advertise tobacco products. In the blow-up doll's mouth, there was a cigarette."
(article here: http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1189069226294870.xml&coll=1)
And here it is -- touching art and expression. O'Hara, drunk with power over this anti-tobacco intolerance that no one will challenge. A tyrant who apparently feels he can violate any right on the issue of tobacco/smoking because it's unpopular and who would dare dissent.
How soon until it's the cigar magazines?
Audrey Silk
NYC C.L.A.S.H.
Posts: 4,582
Threads: 164
Joined: Nov 2006
Reputation:
9
nycclash Wrote:Update on NYS Fair Cigar Sales Ban Suit
Out of the courtesy due all of you that have been supportive or shown an interest (and even those that didn't) I take this space to inform you of the outcome of the lawsuit filed by a cigar vendor, and sponsored by my organization, when the NYS Fair decided to ban all sales of tobacco products on the fairgrounds.
The judge dismissed our case on grounds I'll explain in a minute.
Though the decision was rendered on August 23rd I held off on the notification while we explored our options and decided on them. That way it could be given to you all at once.
I/We never pretended that it would surprise us if we lost but felt this was the firmest grounds we've been on in regard to a lawsuit than in cases past. So though not shocking, it was very dismaying.
The grounds for the dismissal rests almost entirely on this line: "[Defendants] are expressly authorized... to deny a vendor's license... under certain circumstances. Specifically applicable here is the PUBLIC POLICY exception." (emphasis mine)
The other relevant excerpts of the decision are these:
"It is undisputed that a tobacco policy exists in New York State... [Defendants] have demonstrated...that permitting the sale of tobacco products...would be contrary to PUBLIC POLICY."
"[T]he court finds [the ban and denial of license] was not arbitrary and capricious, and was thus rationally based"
"[Defendant] O'Hara avers that 'based upon New York State's policy concerning tobacco and tobacco products, it made little sense for the State Fair to make tobacco products available for purchase during the State Fair, while the New York State Department of Health was promoting cessation of smoking.' Additionally, defendants submit proof of New York's tobacco policy and its efforts in furtherance of such policy, including a report from the Department of Health addressing tobacco use in the State as well as information on statewide efforts and programs promulgated under the policy. Because defendants [actions] has a rational basis before the court, it was neither arbitrary nor capricious and, therefore, will not be disturbed."
I've summed it up this way:
The judge concluded that the existence of a "public policy" adopted by the state to control tobacco is enough to allow them the authority to deny a license to sell tobacco ("especially" on state run grounds) in furtherance of the goal of their policy. In the same light, the judge determined that a rational basis existed and thus was not an arbitrary and capricious act. No matter that they didn't also ban smoking or any other "unhealthy" (e.g. fried foods) items, the ban on the sale of tobacco adheres to the "public policy" the state Dept. of Health has established.
Once again, in another extremely disturbing way, all it takes is for the state to declare what will be and for everyone to have to fall in line with no choice. "Public Policy" is determined NOT by the public but by paternalistic agents in government -- both elected AND appointed.
After receiving and weighing expert advice, and on our own opinions in addition to that, WE HAVE DECIDED TO APPEAL. (And has been noted by a reporter at the Syracuse Post-Standard at http://blog.syracuse.com/news/2007/09/tobacco_vendors_lawsuit_dismis.html)
Not that we have the funds for it but we'll worry about that later. After filing our notice of intent, we have the luxury of nine months to submit the actual appeal.
Meanwhile, never doubt that the slippery slope bell we ring is not real. Reported on September 6th was this:
"State Fair Director Dan O'Hara thought a photo [the picture won a blue ribbon in the Fair's 2007 Photography Exhibition] of a smoking blow-up sex doll was inappropriate. It was the cigarette, not the sex."
O'Hara made them take it down, saying, "I believe that it wasn't in keeping with the fair's policy, which is not to advertise tobacco products. In the blow-up doll's mouth, there was a cigarette."
(article here: http://www.syracuse.com/poststandard/stories/index.ssf?/base/news-3/1189069226294870.xml&coll=1)
And here it is -- touching art and expression. O'Hara, drunk with power over this anti-tobacco intolerance that no one will challenge. A tyrant who apparently feels he can violate any right on the issue of tobacco/smoking because it's unpopular and who would dare dissent.
How soon until it's the cigar magazines?
Audrey Silk
NYC C.L.A.S.H. i wish you the best of luck. keep fighting.
|
