It seems that this issue may be argued more effectively in court on an eminent domain platform.

Wasn't it Mesa, Arizona that tried to take the land of that Brake shop business? The owner had no recourse but to seek legal help against the government "stealing" his property- without due process and full compensation- without HIS PERMISSION. By banning smoking in a business that almost solely relies on smoking, the state has confiscated, in a roundabout way, what was not theirs to confiscate in the first place. The state became the new owner.

If the State of Arizona, by action of such a law as this non-smoking ban, not only bans a business from functioning normally, but effectively results in closing it, the owner(s) should have legal recourse from the eminent domain laws already on the books to recoup all those losses and the entire investment from the State -- because the state, by means of a voter initiative, basically (and wrongly) claimed it's right to exert eminent domain over them, devaluing their business, selling it, and eventually closing it- all without just compensation or any recourse.

It can be argued that this initiative isn't just unfair to the "little guy" business owner, it's a "selective" business killer. Yet casinos, hotels, the places that power tourism in this state, are mystically exempt from the ban? Not to mention Veterans clubs and cigar stores? Hmm. A coincidence?

The initiative would have stood a much better chance of losing had these "favored sons" been on the chopping block. That's why they were given "special dispensation". The casinos and the hotels are two of the mightiest chain smokers in the state. No sense in trying to take them on with all their resources. Arizona would lose tourism.

A state smoking ban, should be just that, a state smoking ban,...period. Or it's nothing but a farce and an initiative sponsored torpedoing of local small business owners who have no lobby groups, funding, or legal help to make their case AND KEEP THEIR BUSINESSES on the basis of the merit of free choice and free enterprise.

Hey, if the stoves hot, don't touch it. If SOME voters don't like smoking and think it's unhealthy, even a majority of voters, they should stay out of the bars.

For all the small business owners losing their shirts, it shouldn't matter if Arizona closes your doors, when you have done nothing wrong but abide by their demands, as long as they pay for the privilege.

I don't think that's too much to ask from the courts. They do it with every other B.S. lawsuit out there.

You've actually got a good case.

I am proud to be in your corner concerning this issue of individual freedom.

Smoking in a bar. There never was anything wrong with that, NOR SHOULD THERE BE.

It's appalling that big business, big money, and "bleeding hearts", can push this type of blatant assault against individual freedom on an uninformed and unsuspecting public--- especially about what should be an obvious matter of choice and personal preference.

The people who drew up this voter initiative (to ban smoking in target segments of society) are experts at manipulating people, juggling the numbers and the facts, and rigging elections.

You do realize that we are cornered?

Our NEXT organizational meeting will be held on/at:

Watch here for pending dates.
Very shortly we expect to be posting a schedule of meeting dates in various regions of the Valley. We are growing quickly!

To download a printable introduction and announcement flyer that can be printed and distributed CLICK HERE (PDF format - please be patient while document opens). A variety of new and updated flyers will be available here soon!

NOTE: This flyer still reflects the last meeeting date but will be updated soon!

Please print this flyer, make copies and distribute to anyone you feel may have an interest. Every bit of support helps!