Forwarded to me by Pepper Massey. Thought you’d like to know.
The City of Sturgis/Sturgis City Council has passed a new parking/storage ordinance that may effect you or someone you know during the Sturgis Rally. Ordinance 16.05.11 “prohibits parking or storage of any trailer, recreational vehicle, implement, vehicle or other personal property on any public right-of-way.
It includes:
A) leaving any car, pick up, motorcycle, camper or RV in any public right of way for more than five (5) consecutive days; B) Leaving any farm tractor, implement, trailer, truck or truck tractor in any public right of way for more than twenty-four (24) hours; or C) During the period of July 20-August 15, leaving any RV or camper in any public right of way for more than twenty-four (24) hours.
Items being stored in violation of this ordinance will be subject to fines and the vehicle will be towed by the police department. Special permission for temporary storage needs may be granted in advance form the PD. For further info call Sturgis PD 605.347.5070
Oh Boy!
I am having Myrtle Beach flash backs.
Let the gouging begin, Welcome to Sturgis
I am not suprised because year after year people going to these events do things without thinking about anyone but themselves.
You have all seen it and some may even be one of those that do it. There are plenty of places to park any kind of vehicle you want that do Not Include on the Public Right of Way! Okay it may cost to do so but that should be part of the cost You Pay to attend any event anywhere.
By people parking on the right of way it takes others rights away from using it.
It is well known that any city that puts on a event or allows one to be put on will have to have laws to control what goes on.
Over all Sturgis and the surrounding area seems to be fair in what they have been doing.
Rogue
I love it! Attendance is down, vendors have moved out of Sturgis by the bucket loads so now in an effort to create new revenue the “City” implements new laws with hefty fines and least we forget towing charges! Damn, have to love Sturgis. The best way to avoid any potential fines is to just stay out of Sturgis all together just as we did with Myrtle Beach!
I just received my new Temporary Manufacturers License Application for the Rally from the State of SD a couple of days ago …… the normal fee for the 10 day license is $100.00, however, an insert now sates that if you file for the permit after July 1, 2009 the fee is $250.00 and God forbid you don’t buy the permit until you arrive in Sturgis the fee jumps to $500.00 smackers! One should note that it clearly states on the License Application that if the permit is “purchased 5 or more days prior to the event the amount is $100.00” and “$150.00 thereafter”.
I may have to revive my “Sturgis for Dummies” articles as it seems the thieves are rearing their ugly heads again!
Over & Out,
Jeff
BOYCOTT STURGIS….. Just kidding, I thought I’d be the first to say it before the morons chime in.. Boycott every rally that does something that you don’t like instead of supporting our rally’s like you did MB. Pretty soon you will only be able to ride to your local strip club or Hooter’s bike night.
If you think quitting and complaining is the answer your rolling down a slippery slope..
If all ya got is a bark and no balls….stay on the porch.
Petitions get OK in smoking fight
Let me explain,the statewide draconian smoking ban in south dakota has been detered by the hard work of freedom loving people in that state. I myself wouldnt be going had the ban been instituted as I am sure many of us bikers would have spent our money in places where we can smoke without being criminalized.
These bans across the nation are based upon a lie that second hand smoke harms people…..OSHA wont even make a general duty rule on second hand smoke/ environmental smoke……..freedom isnt just repealing helmet laws its about all our freedoms including the right to smoke in privatly owned businesses that choose to allow it.
THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA
Though repetition has little to do with “the truth,” we’re repeatedly told that there’s “no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”
OSHA begs to differ.
OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.
Of course the idea of “thousands of chemicals” can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-“Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities” Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)
There. Feel better?
As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:
“Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.”
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997
Indeed it would.
Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.
As you’re about to see in a moment.
In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.
Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA’s PELs.
The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:
CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS
“We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained–very few, of course, because it’s difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.
“We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.
“Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.
“Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.
“For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published “danger” threshold.
“For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.
“Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
“At the lower end of the scale– in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.
“For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?
“Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room — a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we’ve been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.
“It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat.”
Chart (Table 1)
-“Toxic Toxicology” Littlewood & Fennel
Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).
Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.
Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.
It’s not even that OSHA wasn’t happy to play along; it’s just that–darn it — they couldn’t find the real-world science to make it credible.
So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.
In response to Banzhaf’s law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.
Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.
Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we’ve already shown) that were generally safe.
This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:
“ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA…to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it….developing some hypothetical [ASH’s characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking….[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers’ rights legislation at the state and local level…
Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH’s suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one…. This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws– a risk no one was willing to take.
As a result of ASH’s dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include.”
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement
Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:
“We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind.”
Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it’s true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them “social outcasts”) –not “safe air.”
And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn’t “help” you, don’t do the science.
http://www.argusleader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009906260326
Come on dude, ces faits et la preuve * * Je veux dire qui est à pourvoir * lol: P