1 2 3 6

Six Burlington Residents Nominated as Libertarian Candidates

At the last Vermont Libertarian Party meeting in May, six Burlington Vermont residents were nominated as Libertarian candidates for the following offices:

State Senate, Chittenden County:



Ben Mayer 
44 marble ave #2 
Burlington, Vermont 05401 
Phone: (802) 881-2393 
Email: [email protected]   



Glyn Wilkinson
225 King St
Burlington, Vermont 05401-4502
Phone: (802) 324-1514
Email: [email protected] 


State Representative, Chittenden-6-1 (Burlington):

Loyal Ploof
PO Box 82
Burlington, Vermont 05408
Phone: (802) 763-8373
Email:  [email protected]


Roy Collette
57 Avenue B
Burlington, Vermont 05408
Phone: (802) 343-7368
Email:  [email protected]

Sheriff, Chittenden County



Owen Mulligan
305 S. Union St. #3
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Phone: 802-355-5247
Email: [email protected] 

High Bailiff, Chittenden County



Jonathan Stauffer
1162 North Ave #2
Burlington, Vermont 05408
Phone: (802) 399-8376
Email: [email protected]

State committee meeting – 12/22/7

The Vermont Libertarian Party executive committee has scheduled a state committee meeting for reorganization of the Vermont Libertarian Party:

** When: Saturday, 12/22, 1pm

** Where: Burlington: Fletcher Free Library, Pickering Room

** Contact: Jeremy Ryan, [email protected], 802-865-0111

** Agenda: We will elect a new State Committee (Chair, Vice Chair,vSecretary, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer). We need 5 people to participate in order to finalize the caucus for this year and remain a party.

Please RSVP if you intend to participate.

Burlington LP News – April 2006

Burlington LP NEWS


April 2006

Sponsored by
The Burlington Libertarian Party



1. From the Chair
2. Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss Speaks to the BBA
3. VFW vs. the State
4. Movie Night: V for Vendetta
5. New VTLP Blog
6. Annual VTLP Convention
7. Burlington Libertarians in Action
8. Libertarian Humor
9. Quote of the Month
10. Letters to the Editor/ Submit an Article


From the chair…

This is our 6th newsletter. We will to provide you notice of current issues facing Burlingtonians, views of other Burlington Libertarians, notices of events of interest, and more.

I hope you enjoy the newsletter. Please feel free to send me your comments, suggestions and your own letters and articles to be included in future issues.

In Liberty,

Jeremy Ryan, Chair
Burlington Libertarian Party
contact me


Burlington Mayor Bob Kiss Speaks to the BBA

Mayor Bob Kiss - Burlington, VermontHeavenly and I attended the regular monthly Burlington Business Association (BBA) meeting this morning where Bob Kiss, Burlington’s new mayor, was the guest speaker and main event. Following is my account of his speech and Q/A…

Kiss stated that the best thing city can do is provide good and efficient services such as public works, police, fire, electricity (low rates), neighborhood schools (which contribute to good education), public transportation and telecommunications (through Burlington Telecom). These services must be provided efficiently. Our challenges as a city are in childcare and healthcare. While Burlington cannot do it alone, the city needs to be more aggressive towards coming up with a solution for the healthcare crisis.

Kiss’s major goal is more social equity in Burlington — to lesson the gap between the rich and the poor.

Burlington budgeting problems are going to be his major initial focus. He believes the local option sales tax will help and he will look for alternative ways to increase the tax revenue for the city, other than the property tax. Kiss is confident that the state will approve Burlington’s request for the local option sales tax. Kiss stated that the local option sales tax is capped at 1%… it’s not open-ended.

Kiss stated that he’s not looking to change much of the current city staff – he wants to work with the existing staff to make positive changes.


Preferred method of communication?
By email, he just got his new email address: [email protected]. You may also contact him by phone: 802-865-7272, City Hall: 149 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401 Web:

Recently the city published a report that suggested capping the budget increases as 3%/year and reducing city staff to 2000 levels. Do you support this?
The city should strive for these goals. City employee benefits are major factor with the budget. The city needs more taxing and funding sources to meet needs.

Affordable housing?
Currently the city is short 21,000 rental and 12,000 home purchase opportunities. Burlington has made great progress towards affordable housing. Kiss hopes for more help from the state government for Burlington Community Land Trust to create more housing. Kiss also wants the zoning rewrite to allow more density throughout the city so more units can be built.

Business in Burlington?
Burlington needs more space for business. Again, Burlington’s zoning needs to allow more density so more businesses can open and expand. The city needs to continue to help grow small (micro) businesses.

The city’s infrastructure is critical for people and businesses locating in Burlington. Kiss stated if he could fill every hole tomorrow he would.

Why do you think you could be mayor?
What do you bring to the table? Kiss cited his 25 years in human services and 12 years managing a larger non-profit as providing him good experience which should translate well in managing the city of Burligton.

Burlington Telecom – what are the long term goals and how will it be financed?
Burlington Telecom is financed by a $20 million bond and the hope is that the revenue will be enough to meet the payments. However, the city is not responsible for the bonds, but Burlington Telecom will be part of the city government. Burlington Telecom will provide cable, phone and internet services to Burlington residents.

What are your thoughts on Northern Lights on Cherry Street and the State Mental Hospital locating at Fletcher Allen?
Northern Lights is a proposed half-way house for released female offenders. Kiss stressed his support for the project as he believes it’s our duty to provide capacity for offenders to be reintroduced into society in order for them to be successful. However, both projects need to be well run and fully funded. Kiss is pleased that the Burlington Housing Authority is a partner in this… this speaks very well of Burlington. Kiss also stated that the U.S. in general is failing in corrections in that far too many released offenders return to prison within a year for repeat offenses. There needs to be more support for them after being released so they are successful and not likely to re-offend.

Your thoughts on the Moran Plant and the Waterfront?
Kiss appreciates how inclusive our waterfront is and wants to keep it inclusive. Kiss wants the opportunity for everyone to use the waterfront and he is very happy with the success so far.

Business plan for city?
Kiss wants to think fresh about Burlington and he will open up discussion with the Burlington businesses regarding his plan.

Syndicated from


VFW vs. the State

VFWOn March 16th, it was reported that the VFW Post 7779 in Hyde Park went to battle against to state in regards to the smoking ban extension to private clubs. They held a meeting and voted to reinstate smoking at the club. Post Commander Bruce Martin stated that it wasn’t so much about the cigarettes as it was about sending a message that the state is butting in where it doesn’t belong.

“These people are sick of the state taking away our private rights.”, stated Martin.

I commend them for taking the initiative to push the limits of the law and I had hoped they would continue to stand against the state. Other VFWs have been rumored to begin allowing smoking again as well.

However, in the end, it appears that the state’s threats of $10,000/day fines were too much for them to risk. However, I would have like to see the state try to shut down a VFW for smoking. That would have been one of the best opportunities for overturning the law. I would imagine that a VFW would have had the best chance of getting public support against the state. I cannot imagine many people siding with the state against veterans on whether they should be able to smoke or not in their own club.

Syndicated from


Movie Night: V for Vendetta

Quote from movie:
“People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people.”

V for Vendetta

Last night, Hardy Machia, Bonnie Scott, Kevin Ryan, Jonathan Stauffer, Heavenly and I went out together to see the movie V for Vendetta, another great movie from the people who brought you The Matrix. Again, the Wachowski brothers have created a Libertarian-themed movie where a small group of people are fighting to reduce the power of an oppressive government and to open people’s eyes to it.

Brief Synopsis of film from

“V for Vendetta is based on a graphic novel by Alan Moore that is set in England in 2020. Great Britain is under the control of a fascist government who use fear and intimidation to control its citizens. The government controls the media and clamps down on free speech through its Ministry of Objectionable Materials.

A mysterious rebel known as V, who is dubbed a terrorist by the Hitler-esque Chancellor Sulter, plots to overthrow the government. V seeks to complete 17th century saboteur Guy Fawkes’s mission to blow up Parliament, as way to spark a rebellion.

Looking at early reviews, V for Vendetta has plenty of action and thrills to keep audiences entertained, and delivers a clear libertarian message, which can be summed up in its tagline – “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of the people.”

More information:



Syndicated from


New VTLP Blog


When you visit, you will notice that they now have a blog. Just under Upcoming Events is the Recent News section. Here you will find something new just about every day. (If you know about RSS feeds, then you can watch our blog at



Annual VTLP Convention

Come celebrate with like minded Vermonters on April 29 at the Capital Plaza in Montpelier at the Vermont Libertarian Party state convention.


Vermont Libertarian Party Convention 2006

Capitol Plaza Hotel & Conference Center

100 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont

Saturday, April 29, 8:30 a.m. – 4 p.m.


SCOTT BERKEY AT 802-728-6211 OR [email protected]

Online Reservation Form




  • 8:30 a.m. Registration Opens
  • 9:30 a.m. Chair’s Welcome, Recognition of VIP’s
  • 10:00 a.m. Introduction of Attending Vendors
  • 10:15 a.m. Nomination of Delegates to the National Convention
  • 10:30 a.m. Adoption of Campaign 2006 Platform
  • 12:00 p.m. Break




  • 12:30 p.m. Luncheon (Reservations Required)
  • Ethan Allen travels through time to speak
  • 2:00 p.m. Guest Speakers (Tickets Required $10)
  • Rob Williams, Vermont Commons/Second Vermont Republic
  • Martin Harris, Citizens for Property Rights
  • James Dwinell, Dwinell Political Report
  • 3:00 p.m. Keynote Speaker: Frank Bryan
  • 4:00 p.m. Social Hour


Lunch: Seating for lunch is by reservation only. Reservation may be placed with Scott Berkey by calling (802) 728-6211, emailing [email protected] or through our online reservation form ( The price is $25 per person if paid in advance and $30 if paid on the day of the convention. The ticket for the speakers is included in the cost of lunch. A vegetarian option is available.

Directions: The Capitol Plaza is located at 100 State Street in Montpelier. Exit 8 off I-89, merge onto Memorial Drive. At second stop light take a left onto Bailey Avenue. At intersection take right onto State Street. Vermont State House is on your left, 1/2 block on the Right is Capitol Plaza Hotel. The phone number is (802) 223-5252.



Burlington Libertarians in Action… (upcoming events)


  • April 13, 2006
    Peter Christ :: Why Drug Prohibtion Doesn’t Work
    SSDP meeting’s at 6PM, UVM’s C/C Theater and
    NPA meeting’s at 8PM, McClure MultiGenerational Center
    Click here or go to the following url for more info on Peter Christ:







Libertarian Humor…



Quote of the Month…

“Each political program, supposedly for the benefit of the poor or some other deserving group, is really a political boondoggle – a subsidy for someone who is much too rich to need it.”

– Harry Browne


Letters to the editor/ submit an article

For information or to submit news, letters, or articles, contact us .


Burlington LP News is a publication of the Burlington Libertarian Party, 53 Avenue C, Burlington, VT 05401. All Rights Reserved. Copyright (C) 2006.

Jeremy Ryan Announces Run for Burlington City Council

Jeremy Ryan announced he is running for city council here in ward 7 of Burlington. He chose to run because he would like to help make some much needed changes to how the city government does business. He wants to help improve the quality of life for Burlington residents by pushing for lower taxes and affordable housing. By cutting excessive regulations and state control, he believes our city would be far better off. He will fight for taxpayer rights and local control over our finances and our schools. He is a strong believer in protecting your property rights and personal freedoms.

Jeremy Ryan supports the following:

– Lower taxes and voter control over city budget.

– Open and honest government.

– Local control over schools and government.

– Affordable housing by lowering taxes and regulations.

You can read more on his positions, his biography and blog by going to his campaign web site at:


Jeremy Ryan, candidate
Jeremy Ryan for City Council
53 Avenue C
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Phone: 802-865-0111
Fax: 309-406-3143

Burlington Libertarian Party Urges Burlington to Not Pursue Rent Control.

The stated purpose of the new rent control resolution proposed by councilors Fiermonte, P-Ward 3 and Ashe, P-Ward 3 is to help fix high rents. While the resolution was written with good intentions, the practice of rent control does not work. The problem is based on simple economics. The supply is less than the demand and you do not fix the supply by attacking it.

The resolution urges “a simple but effective method of regulating the annual increase in rents while allowing property owners to recover reasonable costs.” It would require advance notice to tenants of annual rent increases of more than 5 percent and give them the right of a quick appeal to an unspecified board. Landlords would be required to appear before the board to justify the increase.

Enacting the resolution being proposed almost assures a 5% per year increase in rent, not a reduction. Furthermore, rent control will cause reduced investment in existing and new rental housing. The end result will be still higher rents, even less affordable housing and lower quality housing.

What caused the high rents? Excessive regulation, the recent reappraisal, and excessive property taxes are to blame. The regulations make it too hard to build enough units of housing in Burlington. Regulations are the mandates that make the too few permitted units much more expensive, driving up rents. Also, if we are to avoid sprawl, the cities like Burlington have to loosen up regulations to make more honestly affordable units.

The 2002 Mayor’s Affordable Housing Task Force Report quotes the Burlington Housing Authority staff saying that they wouldn’t own rental property in Burlington because the City makes it so hard for landlords.

The Burlington Libertarian Party urges the city council to reduce the regulation and property taxes in order to make rents more affordable. The city must understand that any attack on landlords is passed on to the tenants.


Jeremy Ryan, Chair
Burlington Libertarian Party
53 Avenue C
Burlington, Vermont 05401
Phone: 802-865-0111
Fax: 309-406-3143
[email protected]

Commercial Free Schools

There a new group called Citizens for Commercial-Free Schools (CCFS), which is a group of Burlington parents and community members working since Spring 2005 to remove corporate and military advertising from our public schools.

They have circulated a petition (signed so far by over 100 Burlingtonians) and presented it to the school board. They have proposed a donations policy that the school board is now considering. About twenty supporters have attended one or more school board meetings since this effort began.

CCFS supports and encourages corporate donations to our schools (including donations from General Dynamics), and believes donor generosity should be acknowledged on school Web sites, in school district newsletters, and in press releases.

The following is statement pulled from a recent letter to the editor from the Burlington Free Press submitted by Eric Hart, representing CCFS…

[Letter begins]

CCFS opposes in-school advertising. Three times a year, every elementary school child is required to walk to a desk and shake hands with a General Dynamics representative in thanks for a book, a pencil, and a bookmark all labeled “Compliments of General Dynamics.” (When I asked my son Daniel how he knows who they are, he said “their badges say “General Dynamics!”) Many parents I’ve talked with say they are “uncomfortable” or “uneasy” with this, regardless of what they think of General Dynamics as a company.

CCFS opposes in-school advertising because it brings politics into the classroom, stifles open communication, and sends confusing messages to our children and educators alike. Laurie Essig, a Burlington parent, reports that her third-grader repeatedly asked this spring “why are we treating these people (General Dynamics) like heroes, when they make bombs?” She was left in the classroom while her classmates and the teacher went to receive Reading is Fundamental books. According to Essig, “My child came home in tears, believing she had been punished.” Our children should not be placed in this situation.

[Letter ends]

I believe that the teacher’s act was wrong and should not be allowed in the future. The teacher should not have held the girl back. She should have been able to go with everyone else and ask her question. Now, it’s obvious to me that her parents most likely put her up to this because they are most likely anti-war and they express it to their daughter.

The main issue now is the “compliments of General Dynamics” stickers and free bookmarks and pencils with their name on it and the fact that General Dynamics Reps have General Dynamics name badges on it while handing out the books.

I believe the real issue is political. Politics is in the classroom already, it’s unavoidable. If you have schools that are largely democrat and left-leaning, you are going to have those values expressed in the teaching, just as it would be if the schools were run by Republicans, Greens or Libertarians. I don’t believe it can be avoided. People can not change who they are.

If it were representatives from Ben & Jerry stamping books, which is a corporation, I do not believe we would be having this discussion as they are more democrat-friendly and anti-war.

We have all kinds of public events here in Burlington where we have company sponsors with their banners proudly displayed at the event such as Hannafords, which I know sponsored our Ethan Allen Tower event here this summer as well as the city’s fireworks show. I didn’t hear of anyone complaining about that. These companies are giving back to the community, why shouldn’t they be recognized and if we don’t like the terms… don’t participate.

Now, let me state for the record. I did not and do not support the continued war in Iraq. However, I believe that in the case of the books from General Dynamics the children should be allowed to go get the books if they wish. If they or their parents don’t like the terms, then don’t participate. I do not like that fact that some people are putting their political beliefs ahead of the children’s interest.

The real tragedy here is that many of the poorest children are lacking good books to read… why rob them of this great opportunity to get the books they want to read for free or get a chance to meet their favorite authors, which General Dynamics also organizes for the children. It’s really easy for well to do people to just turn General Dynamics away and say it’s worth it to further your personal politics, but for the poorest children, pushing General Dynamics out of the program could be a huge lost opportunity.

Community Schools

The following was an article recently published in the Burlington Free Press regarding the recent proposal to close down Barnes and Wheeler schools…

[begin article]

Old North Enders did not mince words Thursday when it came to telling Burlington school officials what they think about the subject of closing their neighborhood elementary schools.

Barnes and H.O. Wheeler must stay open, said many among the crowd of about 60 residents of Wards 2 and 3 during a meeting at the McClure Multigenerational Center. School Board officials, including interim Superintendent Jeanne Collins and board member Fred Lane, came to talk about next year’s gloomy budget scenario and asked for feedback from the community.

Lane cautioned that neither the board nor the administration has proposed closing either school. But the subject was broached earlier this summer by former Superintendent Lyman Amsden, who said low-income students in the Old North End who are being academically out-performed by low-income students in the rest of the district would benefit by being moved into other schools in the city.

Many residents who say the rumors of closing the schools are circulating in their neighborhood, said consolidation of Barnes and Wheeler can’t be the only solution to solving a looming $1 million budget deficit.

“Regardless of whether or not Barnes and Wheeler is on the table this very second, everyone in this room thinks they’re going to be on the table eventually,” said Ward 3 resident Jules Fishelman. “We need to be convinced that this School Board is actually interested in looking at the bigger picture. I remain unconvinced that we’re thinking outside the box when it comes to Barnes and Wheeler.”

Lane said the only concrete discussion by the board about school buildings has involved potentially closing the Ira Allen administrative building on Colchester Avenue, the Taft building on South Williams Street and a maintenance facility behind Champlain Elementary School.

“We have 19 building and a declining enrollment,” Lane said. “We do not need that much infrastructure.”

“There is absolutely no decision whatsoever that anyone has made about any facility at this point,” Lane continued. “We’ve only said that we have a series of issues we need to look at.”

Based on administrative projections, the 2006-07 budget will increase by $3.1 million if costs are not contained, school officials have said. Burlington homeowners could face a tax increase of 12 cents per $100 of assessed value based on school district spending alone. Yet to be factored into the increase is the common level of appraisal, which could raise the tax rate increase further.

Ward 3 City Councilor Tim Ashe said Old North Enders are frustrated by a perceived lack of communication between them and school officials.

“Why not come to the community first before throwing out these ideas,” Ashe said. “Many people are frustrated because it always comes out by little hints and rumors and everyone is left asking what’s going on.”

School district officials plan to discuss the budget challenges and its plan for meeting district needs during meetings this month in all the city’s wards.

[end of article]

I don’t believe closing Barnes and HO Wheeler is good idea. By having these schools, it helps promote competition among the 6 elementary schools of Burlington. Students may transfer within the 6 schools. This allows the children and parents to have some choice in their education. It would be even better to allow the choice of private schools as well.

Regarding the costs. The biggest cost for our schools is the staff salaries and huge benefits packages. If enrollment is declined, why not reduce the staff in proportion to the enrollment. If there is extra space in the schools, it would make an excellent opportunity to rent out the extra space to child care providers, homeschoolers or even private teachers to help subsidize the schools. Just a thought.

Also, a lot of people want to go to school with people like them, where they might fit in. The reasoning suggested for closing the two schools say they are under-performing because they are in low-income areas and by relocating the students to “higher-income” school they will perform better.

I do not believe this to be completely true. It’s possible that grades may improve, but at a major cost to self-esteem. Speaking as a low-income person myself, I know what it was like to go to school in a high-income school. I always felt different, out-of-place, and I hated going to school as a result. I’ve talked to others with similar experiences. I also know some parents that practically bankrupt themselves so that their children appear to be wealthier so that they fit it, so not to be made fun of.

I would often hear other students and teachers make fun of Milton for the supposed “backwards-ness”. I remember thinking to myself, I wish I could go to school there, where I might be accepted. Therefore, I do not believe in forced-integration of classes… it just doesn’t work.

School Choice

I would like to now share some thoughts I’ve had while researching the idea of school choice. As I mentioned earlier, we do currently have school choice among the 6 elementary schools here in Burlington. I would prefer a more advanced school choice policy than we have right now. How about choices outside of Burlington and high school choice? About 90 towns in Vermont currently have complete choice as they lack a school district, why shouldn’t we as Burlingtonians have the choice as well? There are several different options here:

  1. We could allow school choice among public schools in Vermont, which would allow for a choice in which public high school you want to attend.

  2. We could allow school choice among public schools and include private schools, further expanding the pool of choices we would have.

To allow school choice among public schools, should be fairly easy to do as most likely what would happen as the money’s your child current are allotted by the your local and state government would be turned over to whatever public school you chose in the state. This would help increase competition for students and the quality should increase dramatically.

To allow school choice among public schools and private schools is more difficult as it’s more controversial. As many people fear what may happen if private schools were allowed to compete. Most of the fears are put out there by the public education people themselves because of course they fear competition. No group is going to support a move that would create more competition for themselves. There are a couple of ways of going about it to make sure that everyone has access to the best possible education that fits their beliefs. School Vouchers provides the choice to everyone so that no child rich or poor is left out. However, the critics say, “I don’t want my taxes going to pay for a private school, or I wouldn’t have any say in how it’s run, or private schools are too expensive.” I personally don’t really see the difference. With public schools, everyone working there, the teachers and the administration are working for a profit aren’t they? Costing much more than the private schools. I believe that with more competition including the private schools, the parents would have far more say than they do now. How much say does a parent really have in Burlington schools? If you don’t like what’s going on in the school, such as with the General Dynamics books for example, but nothing happens, what can you do… you still have to pay for school system that supports corporate help. What if you are not a democrat, support the war, believe in prayer and intelligent design… you still have to support a school system and have your child subjected to ideas that are against your personal beliefs. And regarding private schools being too costly… depending on who you talk to our per pupil costs for Burlington public schools are around $12,000 and the average for private schools is $3000-$4000. This is incredible to me. A third of the cost, they provide a superior education, and they still are able to make a profit. There’s obviously something very wrong with the economics of our public schools.

Another spin on school choice among public and private schools is that the town could offer property tax refund and renter rebates to individuals that chose to opt out of the system for their educational costs. This method would actually save the city money as for each child that opted for private school or even home-schooling, they city would be only liable for the $3,000-$4,000 instead of the full $12,000. A very interesting idea I think. Something definitely worth looking into.

Be a Better Neighbor

There was a recent article in the Burlington Free Press regarding Vermont bars and clubs and smokers blocking sidewalks and making a mess. The article and my comments are below…

[article begins]

Vermont bars and clubs owe it to their customers and neighbors to provide a suitable place to smoke outside the establishments. In some cases, smokers are blocking sidewalks outside bars, creating problems for passers-by and litter for someone else to clean up.

This is a new issue for many bar and club owners. The Legislature just passed a law banning smoking in these establishments to protect the health of customers and employees from second-hand smoke.

It’s a good law that sends an important message about a public health problem that costs the state millions of dollars and about 1,000 lives annually.

Burlington bars ought to be further along in planning for outdoor smoking. The city prohibited indoor smoking in May 2004, followed by South Burlington, Winooski and Williston.

However, some bar and club owners aren’t policing their smokers outside their establishment.

In some cases, smokers stand in groups outside the front door, blocking the sidewalk and dropping cigarette butts on the walkway or curb. People passing by are forced to either step into the street to pass or carefully wind their way through the crowd.

Most bars are more careful about their patrons’ smoking behavior, providing plenty of large ashtrays to prevent littering and even an out-of-the-way sheltered spot for smoking so walkways are not blocked.

The new law took effect Sept. 1, and many bar owners and private clubs are just beginning to tackle this issue.

They would be smart to take the time to create a safe place for their customers to smoke that doesn’t cause problems for their neighbors.

[end of article]

It sounds to me that many of the people for the smoking ban really ignored the issue discussed in this article. They fought hard to push people the smoke out of the bars where they belonged on onto the street and just ignored the fact that they would be smoking on the sidewalks and that the litter would increased and that people passing by would have to deal with it. Bars for as long as they have been around have always had beer and smoking. That’s what they have been for. First, the city attacked the bars forcing them to provide food so they became more like restaurants which basically forced the evolution of bars and restaurants becoming the same thing here in Burlington. Then they banned all smoking including chewing tobacco, which has nothing to do with second-hand smoking threats.

The article claims that the state loses millions of dollars and 1,000 lives annually. I believe these numbers to be simply false. There has never been any conclusive evidence that a death has been the direct result of smoking. It may be a contributor along with many so-called unhealthy habits such as eating too many carbs, fat, beer, salt, sugar and so on.

Getting back to the issue at hand, many of these bars and restaurants were not built or designed to accommodate outdoors areas for smokers as this whole idea was never conceived of in the United States before now. In the past, behavior modification by the government was never considered and was strongly discouraged, but is now considered common practice. How much more time before they start going after fat, salt and sugar?

The bottom line is that the government doesn’t like smokers, they don’t want them around and they want them to leave Vermont and shop and hang out elsewhere and by looking at increasing business being done by Vermonters in other states like New Hampshire, I think they’re getting the hint. What minority and form of intolerance will be next?

Fluoridation Debate at City Council

The following is an article from the Burlington Free Press regarding the fluoride debate at the last city council meeting…

[Article Begins]

Water fluoridation has become an issue in Burlington, and the City Council on Monday took note of the debate. After lengthy debate, and by a divided vote, it passed a resolution urging that the amount of fluoride in the city’s water be reduced to the minimum level recommended by state and national authorities.

The final version, which passed by a 7-4 vote, was a watered-down version of the original resolution. Language that declared fluoride was a “significant health risk” to infants was removed, as was language indicating that infants up to 6 months of age should receive no fluoride.

Joan Shannon, D-Ward 5, who sponsored the resolution with Sharon Bushor, I-Ward 1, urged that it be passed in its original form, calling it “a small and conservative step,” but the council, following the lead of Kurt Wright, R-Ward 4, narrowed it considerably.

To fluoridation supporters — dentists and the Vermont Department of Health — adding fluoride to the water a proven and cost-effective way to deliver a mineral that reduces tooth decay. To those who oppose it — groups such as the Fluoride Action Network — it is mandated medication that carries with it significant health risks, particularly for children.

Burlington’s Board of Health held public hearings on fluoride this year and decided by a 3-2 vote that the city should continue fluoridating its water supply but consider reducing the amount of fluoride. The board also said that exposing infants up to 6 months old to fluoride constituted “a significant public health risk.”

Even before last night’s crowded meeting began, Dr. Steve Arthur, director of the health department’s Office of Oral Health, e-mailed a lengthy statement to councilors arguing that fluoride is not a significant health risk. He said the department continues unreservedly to support water fluoridation.

He also took exception to a provision in the resolutions that would have the Board of Health leading the effort to develop information on fluoridation to be distributed to Burlington parents. The board, he wrote, “is not the appropriate body to ‘develop’ health education literature. Instead, he said, the Health Department should have that job.

The council, after listening to 21 speakers for and against fluoridation, leaned in Arthur’s direction. The “significant risk” language was removed from the resolution, and the Department of Health gained the seat it wished on the panels that will recommend the appropriate amount of fluoride in the water and develop the literature informing parents about fluoride.

The resolution was amended extensively on the floor. Two attempts to send the resolution to committee for fine-tuning failed, despite promises that it could be returned for a council vote at the Oct. 11 meeting.

[Article Ends]

I still believe that the city council is really missing the issue here. It’s my opinion that it’s not their job to decide on the validity and safety of water fluoridation… they should be deciding on if it’s the city’s job to force medication on its citizens. This is the real issue, not to become an authority on water fluoridation and make the decision for us all. While, its believed that the resolution that was passed puts the issue in the right direction, I don’t. By accepting this resolution, we are still accepting that the city has the right to force medicate all citizens. The resolution just suggests that the city needs to explore it further, educate the public on fluoride and debate on how much fluoride to add to the water.

I truly believe that when the dentists are pushing so hard to continue water fluoridation and get so antsy when anyone even mentions the possibility of risks of water fluoridation, it is mostly a result of fear. They are so afraid that if people feel they were hurt as a result of water fluoridation, they will file lawsuits and that their credibility will be lost. The city could also be liable because they are directly responsible for public water fluoridation, which I imagine is also putting a lot of pressure on the city councilors. This is why the government has no place getting involved in this kind of business. They are doing something that would be illegal for any doctor to do. A doctor cannot just start medicating a patient with a prescription grade drug without the patient’s consent. Why should the city government have this privilege?

1 2 3 6