I can't find the full study, but I will try.
And you can find Generalsn ALL over the country posting that same info over and over again. I'm pretty sure he works for a tobacco company.

I'm adamantly against smokign anywhere in public, or in any business that operates as a commercial establishment via public zoning ordinances. Your right to smoke anywhere stops at the point my lungs have to inhale the foul stuff.

But it occurs to me, that if more people quit smoking, we're going to have a huge tax canyon to fill.

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community according to the width of your sidewalks.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229

That deregulation was accomplished largely for the ebenfit of AT&T and its then-new cable-TV biz, and Comcast, Brightpoint, etc. AT&T hired away George Fleetwood from O'Bannon's staff many years ago, and he cashe din on connections, as did others.

But none of the state dereg DISallowed localities their rightful oversight re: rights-of-way, etc. Have you seen the disgusting manne rin which the cables/AT&T have chopped up rights-of-way all over town, and failed to repair afterward? Especially in the last couple of years. It took me 18 months to get AT&T to come back and fill in some holes they left.

And please tell us who represents AT&T. I'm in a fog–seriously. I don't know.

The comments from the corpcounsel's office re: Maultra were hilarious–because most of the legal and biz community recognizes that Ballard's CorpCounsel office is a complete and utter joke–a training ground for future Icemiller/B&T/BakerDaniels partners. Their work product and logic the last 20 months has been, well–laughable, simplistic and naive, at best.

Most of the regulatory effort still has to start at the local level, even with state involvement. Elimination of Maultra's office will stop that regulatory effort. Maultra also advocated that the city collect rights of ways fees from telecoms for use of public property like virtually every other city in the U.S. does. That didn't make him popular with a certain figure in the Ballard administration who represents AT&T. I'm sure that's just a big coincidence though.

I can't find the full study, but I will try.
And you can find Generalsn ALL over the country posting that same info over and over again. I'm pretty sure he works for a tobacco company.

I'm adamantly against smokign anywhere in public, or in any business that operates as a commercial establishment via public zoning ordinances. Your right to smoke anywhere stops at the point my lungs have to inhale the foul stuff.

But it occurs to me, that if more people quit smoking, we're going to have a huge tax canyon to fill.

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?ia=143&id=14912

And what the 99 million dollars was going to. Note on page seven the “inside -out”, provision going for patios later, AFTER business owners spend thousands of dollars to build them to accommodate their smoking customers, clearly showing that the tobacco control activists have ABSOLUTLY NO CONCERN about local issues or businesses.

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamentals.pdf

Here's the “model ban” from page eight that many communities copied, printed, and passed. It's the “smoking ban for dummies” It only takes a few minutes to fill in the blanks naming your community, the administrators names, and blanks to customize it to your community according to the width of your sidewalks.

http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=229

That deregulation was accomplished largely for the ebenfit of AT&T and its then-new cable-TV biz, and Comcast, Brightpoint, etc. AT&T hired away George Fleetwood from O'Bannon's staff many years ago, and he cashe din on connections, as did others.

But none of the state dereg DISallowed localities their rightful oversight re: rights-of-way, etc. Have you seen the disgusting manne rin which the cables/AT&T have chopped up rights-of-way all over town, and failed to repair afterward? Especially in the last couple of years. It took me 18 months to get AT&T to come back and fill in some holes they left.

And please tell us who represents AT&T. I'm in a fog–seriously. I don't know.

The comments from the corpcounsel's office re: Maultra were hilarious–because most of the legal and biz community recognizes that Ballard's CorpCounsel office is a complete and utter joke–a training ground for future Icemiller/B&T/BakerDaniels partners. Their work product and logic the last 20 months has been, well–laughable, simplistic and naive, at best.

Most of the regulatory effort still has to start at the local level, even with state involvement. Elimination of Maultra's office will stop that regulatory effort. Maultra also advocated that the city collect rights of ways fees from telecoms for use of public property like virtually every other city in the U.S. does. That didn't make him popular with a certain figure in the Ballard administration who represents AT&T. I'm sure that's just a big coincidence though.