Dumass California lawmakers at it again…….

California lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would raise the age at which someone in the state can buy cigarettes from 18 to 21 years old.

The Senate bill now advances to the state assembly. If it passes there and is signed by the governor, it would make California among the first states to raise the smoking age into a person’s 20s.

Senate Bill 151, introduced by state Sen. Ed Hernandez, a democrat, would allow the state’s health department to conduct random inspections of tobacco retailers, making sure they aren’t selling products to people under 21 years old. The state Senate also passed a bill this week that defined e-cigarettes as tobacco products and would thus ban them from areas that are now “smoke-free,” theSacramento Bee reported.

“It’s time to stop allowing tobacco companies to make the deadly product so readily available to our youth,” Hernandez said, according to the Los Angeles Times.

The legislation is meant to help prevent people from becoming introduced and thus potentially addicted to tobacco products at an early age. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, raising the smoking age to 21 could save lives. A study published in March found that delaying the initiation to cigarettes by pushing back the smoking age to 21 could reduce the number of smoking adults by 12 percent. This could equate to about 223,000 fewer premature deaths and 50,000 fewer deaths attributable to lung cancer.

The reason why raising the smoking age to 21 could be an effective measure, the study explained, is because people who are 21 and legally allowed to purchase tobacco products are less likely to be in the same social circles as younger high school students.

According to the study, four states currently have the smoking age set at 19 and some localities have pushed it to 21. Earlier this year, legislation to raise the smoking age to 21 went to Hawaii Gov. David Ige’s desk. If Ige signs it, the law would go into effect in 2016.

Jeffery Wilson, a Californian who owns Uncle Neo’s Smoke Shop, told KPIX-TV that the legislation, if it becomes a new law, would hurt his business.

“I’m not opposed to it, but in terms of a business aspect I think it’d hurt quite a bit,” Wilson said, noting that 70 percent of his sales are to people under 21 years of age.

Dipshidiots of the day: Well deserved to be fired Wounded Warrior execs…….

Wounded Warrior executives fired amid controversy


The board of the Wounded Warrior Project, one of the largest veteran support organizations in the country, has fired the nonprofit’s chief executive officer and the chief operating officer, according to a CBS News report.

The departure of two top executives, CEO Steven Nardizzi and COO Al Giordano, comes at a time when the wounded veteran-focused organization is awash in controversy amid news reports accusing the group of wasteful spending.

According to Wounded Warrior Project tax forms obtained by a CBS News investigation, the organization spent $26 million on conferences and meetings in 2014, up from $1.7 million in 2014.

The CBS report also talked to numerous former employees that accused the organization of making money off their injuries.

According to the charity watchdog, ”Charity Navigator,” Wounded Warrior Project only spends 60 percent of its budget on veterans. The Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation, on the other hand, provides more than 98 percent to veterans. Charity Navigator also assessed that Wounded Warrior’s total revenue for 2014 was well over $340 million.

One former employee told CBS News that how Wounded Warrior Project spends its money is the equivalent of ”what the military calls fraud, waste and abuse.”

In the wake of the reports, Wounded Warrior Project issued a statement attacking them as false and accusing CBS of not contacting the chair of the Wounded Warrior Project’s audit committee prior to running their story. The organization also took to social media, responding to numerous concerns and attacks on its Facebook page.

According to CBS, Nardizzi and Giordano’s removal was due in part to the preliminary results of a financial audit following the reports accusing Wounded Warrior Project of improper spending.

This will seriously hurt donations and is what happens when you have people put themselves above all others especially the Veterans…….

Time for DAWG to move maybe?


N.H. won’t ban women from showing breasts or nipples in public



The New Hampshire House on Wednesday rejected a bill that would have made it crime for women to expose their breasts or nipples in public, a measure that caused an online dispute among several legislators that drew national attention.

The House voted against making it a misdemeanor for women to show their breasts with “reckless disregard” for whether it would offend someone. The bill was partly a response to a “Free the Nipple” movement that led to two women being cited for going topless at a Gilford beach. A judge dismissed that case in February.

Heidi Lilley, 54, previously said she wanted to prove the Gilford ordinance is unconstitutional and that women should be allowed to expose their upper bodies.

Lilley and 28-year-old Barbara MacKinnon were ticketed on Sept. 6 of last year for their lack of shirts.

The bill caused the spat among lawmakers in December after a male lawmaker said if women want to show their breasts publicly, they should be OK with men wanting to “grab” them.

Bill supporters had cautioned that allowing women to go topless at beaches could lead to them also going topless at libraries and Little League games. They said they were trying to shield families and children.

Opponents said such a ban violates the constitution by creating different standards for men and women.

In its report recommending the bill’s rejection, the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety said it heard testimony from many who warned that, due to likely acts of civil disobedience, the state would face expensive court fees if the bill became law.

The New Hampshire chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union testified that violation of such a law could be considered protected political speech, indicating the state would be unsuccessful in litigation.

The report said many believed the listing of an offender in the state’s sex offender registry after a second conviction to be an excessive punishment.

It said the bill also would place police officers “in the uncomfortable position of having to determine the gender of a potential offender.”

It added, “In a state with an average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low.”