A western Pennsylvania police union has won a ruling from the state Supreme Court that borough officials may not unilaterally ban officers on duty from using smokeless tobacco in nonpublic work spaces or smoking in some official vehicles.

The decision made public Thursday said Ellwood City’s 2006 ban on tobacco use on borough property will have limited application to members of the police union, unless they agree to it through contract negotiations.

“While local legislation which promotes clean air and warns of the risks of tobacco use may be laudatory, it may not serve as a barrier to negotiations over this topic when it constitutes a working condition subject to mandatory bargaining,” wrote Justice Debra McCloskey Todd for the unanimous court.

The court overturned a 2008 Commonwealth Court ruling that had upheld the complete prohibition, but officers still are prevented from smoking in public places or inside borough buildings and vehicles used for mass transit because of the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act of 2008.

A divided Commonwealth Court panel had deemed the ban a legal exercise of the borough’s police powers, saying it was related to its efforts to promote health and welfare.

But Eric Stoltenberg, the lawyer for the union, the Ellwood City Police Wage and Policy Unit, called the ruling a victory for police and firefighter unions across the state.

“Our worry was geesh, now boroughs are going to start saying we did this under police power, and it’s a managerial right,” he said.

He said the Supreme Court’s ruling means the ban is automatically lifted. If the borough and union can’t agree, the matter would have to be resolved by binding arbitration.

But Ellwood City Mayor Anthony Court said Thursday the borough’s 14 officers have been prevented from using chewing tobacco in nonpublic buildings or smoking in vehicles while the case was on appeal.

“Until it comes to the forefront, it’s going to stay status quo,” Court said. “And then we’ll have to deal with it, one way or another.”

He said the borough would try to impose the ban through the union contract.

By MARK SCOLFORO

Three years after the smoking ban controversially came into force in England, a substantial proportion of smokers want to see restrictions extended to children’s play areas and smoking in cars. Just under half of smokers support a ban in play areas, while 61% support a ban in cars with children.

Surveys by YouGov, commissioned by the anti-smoking organisation Ash, suggest the ban is increasingly popular with the public as a whole. More than three out of four people want it to be extended into other areas of public life, a statistic that is likely to be seized upon by health campaigners.

Around 80% of people in England now back the ban in workplaces, including pubs and restaurants, compared with just over 70% when it was implemented three years ago this week (a ban was introduced in Scotland in 2006). Among the general population, 73% support a ban in children’s play areas while 77% want a ban in cars carrying children, according to exclusive findings of the survey shared with the Observer.

The findings are based on five separate surveys carried out by YouGov. The first was conducted in April 2007, almost three months before the legislation came into force, and the last was carried out in March 2010. The polling suggests some of the greatest changes have taken place in the attitudes of smokers.

Half of all smokers now support the smoke-free law, and nearly one in four strongly supports it. Opposition among smokers appears to be ebbing away with only one smoker in six strongly opposing the ban. The change appears to be underpinned by a deep-seated shift in smokers’ attitudes, according to Ash. It claims smokers are increasingly aware of the danger from secondhand smoke, with 75% believing it is harmful to children’s health.

Dame Helena Shovelton, chief executive of the British Lung Foundation, said the findings showed the government had to act. “Smoking just one cigarette, even with the car window open, creates a greater concentration of secondhand smoke than a whole evening’s smoking in a pub or a bar,” Shovelton said. “A ban on smoking in the car with children would prevent some of the 22,000 new cases each year of asthma, caused as a direct result of passive smoking. This overwhelming evidence of public support can no longer be ignored, and as the only UK charity supporting everyone affected by lung disease we are calling for this legislation.” An early day motion in parliament demanding a ban on smoking in cars where children are present has been signed by 40 MPs.

But Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest, warned politicians to think twice before implementing further changes to the law. “Any attempt to extend the smoking ban to outdoor areas or private spaces, including cars, will be resisted strongly,” Clark said. “Smokers are fed up with being the whipping boys for politicians and campaigners like Ash.”

Growing support for the ban is consistent with attitudes in other countries such as Ireland, which outlawed smoking in public places in 2004. But Ash said that despite the legislation one non-smoker in eight continues to be exposed to tobacco smoke during their work, often at the entrances. The group also claimed there was no objective evidence the hospitality industry overall had suffered as a result of smoke-free regulations. “England’s smoke-free law has been a huge success and has attracted more support with each passing year since it was implemented,” said Martin Dockrell, director of research and policy at Ash. “The tobacco industry managed to scare smokers and the hospitality trade into opposing the law at the time, but three years on opposition has all but vanished.”

A survey on behalf of the Office for National Statistics indicates that there has been a net increase of 3% in the number of people going to pubs since restrictions were imposed. But Clark said it was “ridiculous” to suggest the ban had not had an impact on pubs and clubs. “The evidence is staring people in the face,” he said. “Thousands of pubs have closed since the ban was introduced.”

A recent report in the British Medical Journal concluded that the smoking ban had led to a 2.4% drop in heart attacks in its first year.

CIGARETTES: THE FACTS

■ 2m children live in households where they are exposed to cigarette smoke.

■ One smoker emits five times more fine particles into a car than are emitted per mile by the car’s exhaust pipe.

■ It is estimated that every year passive smoking causes 25,500 new cases of respiratory tract infection in children under three, as well as 121,400 new cases of middle-ear infection and 22,600 cases of wheezing and asthma.

■ About 1 in 8 boys and 1 in 10 girls have a long-term respiratory disease.

Source: British Lung Foundation

BOSTON — Six years after Massachusetts passed a ban on smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants because of public health concerns, Senate leaders are backing a gambling bill that would allow smoking in new casinos proposed for the state.

The proposal is drawing criticism from antismoking advocates, who say the proposed legislation would put casino patrons and workers at a health risk, while also upending the ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces.

Under legislation briefly debated Wednesday, the state would license three casinos and allow smoking in up to 25 percent of their gaming areas. The bill also requires signs marking the smoking areas and “appropriate ventilation so as to minimize the effect of the smoke on the nondesignated areas.”

Advocates say banning smoking would drive gamblers to other states where casino smoking is allowed.

“The marketing study has shown without smoking, it would dramatically affect your revenues and the amount people play,” said a casino supporter, Sen. Steven Pangiatakos. The Lowell Democrat noted casinos in Connecticut allow smoking.

Sen. Richard Tisei of Wakefield said he supports allowing smoking sections in casinos. Tisei, the Republican leader in the Senate, said he had opposed the statewide workplace smoking ban.

“Anybody who’s ever been to a casino knows that smoking takes place in a casino,” said Tisei, a smoker. “If gambling’s a vice, smoking’s a vice, so why are you going to allow gambling but not smoking?”

Russet Morrow Breslau, executive director of the antismoking advocacy group Tobacco Free Mass, said Massachusetts could become the first state allowing casinos to offer smoking after passing a statewide ban.

“This is step backwards in terms of protecting the rights of patrons and workers,” she said. “Casino workers will be exposed for an entire shift to carcinogens.”

The Massachusetts law passed in 2004 made exceptions for private clubs and cigar bars.

Morrow Breslau said if casinos are allowed to offer smoking, they may even lose more customers than they gain because many people prefer nonsmoking environments.

Mark Hymovitz, the director of government relations and advocacy for the American Cancer Society, said smoking in casinos would force casino workers to choose “between their jobs and their health.”

Local businesses in communities with casinos also will face unfair competition if casinos can offer smoking, Hymovitz said.

“Allowing smoking would create an uneven playing field,” he said.

One proposed casino site is in the western Massachusetts community of Palmer.

“I personally do not want second-hand smoke in casinos, but if legislators feel it will bring revenues into three gaming facilities, the legislators have thought it out clearly,” said Robert Young, spokesman for Palmer Businesses for a Palmer Casino.

A study commissioned by the Senate to look at the potential revenues from casinos in Massachusetts said the three slot machine parlors in Delaware lost more than 11 percent in revenue in 2003 after the state banned smoking. The report also noted that in the years following the ban, revenues rebounded to pre-ban levels.

The report concluded that “smoking policies must be competitive with nearby regional competition.” Connecticut’s two casinos, which are both owned by Indian tribes, allow smoking and have resisted efforts by the state to ban the practice.

Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover, a leading casino opponent, is supporting amendments to ban smoking from the casinos. She said allowing smoking in casinos is an “indefensible policy” and predicted an amendment to ban smoking would pass. However, Tucker said she does not believe the smoking ban will last long.

“If smoking helps (casinos) make money, there will be smoking,” she said.

Atlantic City banned smoking in the city’s 11 casinos in 2008, but repealed the ban a month after it went into effect because of complaints by casinos.

Imperial Tobacco is taking legal action to overturn plans to stop the open display of cigarettes and cigars in shops and to ban cigarette vending machines in Scotland.

The company claims that the Scottish parliament, which approved the measures earlier this year, does not have the legislative competence to prohibit tobacco displays and cigarette vending machines.

The legal challenge, which will be heard next week in the Scottish civil courts, the court of session, is the latest attempt by the industry to prevent sweeping new controls of the sale of tobacco coming into force across the UK.

In April, Imperial began legal proceedings to block a similar ban on displays in England and Wales, which comes into force in October 2011 under the Health Act 2009. In February its cigarette vending machine subsidiary Sinclair Collis applied for a judicial review of the ban on tobacco vending machines under the same legislation. It claims the measures are unreasonable and lack sufficient health evidence.

Scotland was the first part of the UK to introduce a ban on smoking in public places, in 2006, and Holyrood followed Westminster’s legislation on tobacco displays and vending machines earlier this with parallel measures.

The ban on open displays of tobacco products will come into force in Scotland for larger retailers next year and small shops in 2013, while the ban on cigarette vending machines, usually found in pubs, restaurants and hotels, begins in 2011.

Imperial Tobacco claims the new measures are an attempt to regulate the sale and supply of goods to consumers, a matter reserved to the Westminster parliament. The bans also affect the freedom of trade provisions between Scotland and England under the 1707 Act of Union, again something which Holyrood is prevented by law from doing. Imperial said retailers would be required to comply with the new legislation at “significant cost and on pain of criminal penalty”, while tobacco firms faced having their freedom to compete affected significantly.

The Lord Advocate, Elish Angiolini QC, insists the act is entirely legal. She said the legislation was part of a programme to improve public health in Scotland by reducing smoking, which kills 13,500 Scots a year and is the most preventable cause of premature death.

Point-of-sale displays serve “an advertising, normalising and marketing function” in order to make products on show attractive to potential buyers, the Scottish government argues. Some studies show that banning open displays cuts the odds of someone becoming an under-age smoker by 50%. But Gareth Davis, Imperial’s chief executive, said: “There is no credible evidence to support the idea that children start smoking or that adult smokers continue to smoke as a result of the display of tobacco products.

“If this misguided legislation is implemented it will simply fuel the growth in the illicit trade of tobacco and create a huge cost burden for retailers who are already under considerable pressure.”

The Scottish government said it would “rigorously defend” the legislation. “It is within the context of protecting future generations from the devastating effects of smoking that the measures set out in our act should be viewed.”

By Severin Carrell
guardian.co.uk, 24 June 2010

Indonesian tobacco growers and their regional counterparts ended a two-day meeting, dubbed the first Asia Tobacco Forum, in Jakarta on Tuesday by revealing a plan that basically consisted of doing what they have already been doing — pleading with national governments not to adopt the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

Countries that adopt the framework would, among other things, commit themselves to ban flavored cigarettes, which include clove-favored cigarettes, or kretek, the mainstay of the Indonesian tobacco industry.

Meanwhile, the domestic tobacco industry is fighting on another front.

The World Trade Organization on Tuesday began hearing an Indonesian trade dispute with the United States over the latter’s ban of flavored cigarettes.

Indonesia claims the ban is discriminatory because menthol cigarettes, most of which are produced in the US, were not banned.

Citing numerous studies, the US says flavored cigarettes encourage teens and children to begin smoking, and make it harder to quit.

The stakes are high for tobacco farmers and cigarette producers in Indonesia, where a toddler recently gained international renown for his clove cigarette habit.

The industry employes an estimated 6 million people, including tobacco farmers, production workers and vendors.

Around Rp 180 trillion ($20 billion) worth of cigarettes are produced each year, including $564 million of exports in 2009.

The industry claims millions of jobs could be at stake over the WHO framework and the US ban on clove cigarettes.

Sudaryanto, the chairman of the Indonesian Tobacco Alliance (Amti), said the framework presented a tremendous challenge to the Indonesian tobacco industry.

Ninety-three percent of cigarettes produced in Indonesia are kretek.

“Although Indonesia has not signed the FCTC, we will still be impacted since it will eliminate our ability to export kreteks to any country adopting the framework,” he said.

A total of 168 countries have signed the WHO framework, and are ready to debate its adoption at the domestic level.

Roger Quarles, the president of the International Tobacco Growers Association, on Tuesday vowed to take the fight to the health, agriculture and industry ministries in each country ahead of the next WHO meeting on tobacco in Uruguay scheduled for November.

Fuad Baradja, head of the education unit at the Indonesian Smoking Control Foundation (LM3), said national governments should not buy cigarette producers’ argument that adopting a ban on flavored cigarettes would devastate the industry.

“Cigarettes will always be around. There will never be a total ban on cigarettes. This particular ban is intended to discourage younger smokers,” he said.

Fuad said Indonesia needed to ratify the WHO ban on flavored cigarettes to slow the accelerating rate of smoking in the country as cigarette companies become more creative in seeking new customers.

“Flavored cigarettes are more and more creative. There are cappuccino flavors, different kinds of fruit flavors. All these flavors disguise the natural flavor of the cigarette itself,” he said.

Louise Baker, technical officer at the WHO office in Jakarta, said there was no justification for producing flavored cigarettes, which she said served only to make smoking more attractive to teenagers.

“It’s really concerning seeing a 14-year-old girl buying chocolate-flavored cigarettes, because the flavor is familiar to her. Several years later, she would be already addicted to the smoke,” she said.

Baker said the WHO was concerned about the fate of the workers and farmers that might be affected, and she urged the government to create a program to slowly shift farmers from growing tobacco to other crops and to retrain tobacco industry workers.

Yos Ginting, a director at cigarette company PT HM Sampoerna, declined to comment on the magnitude of the challenges facing his industry.

Sampoerna, as a member of Amti, would adhere to any decisions made by the organization, Yos said.
By Arti Ekawati & Faisal Maliki Baskoro

A law aimed at educating smokers that “light” or “mild” cigarettes are no less addictive goes into effect today, forcing tobacco companies to drop those terms on packaging and to market packs using color or other codes.

After the Food and Drug Administration gained the power to regulate the tobacco industry last year, one of its first acts was to change the way cigarettes can be advertised and sold. Manufacturers may distribute any leftover packs bearing the banned terms through July 21, but they can’t print new ones.

Dropping labels that make smokers believe their choice is less harmful is a positive move, said Dr. Roger Zoorob, chair of Meharry Medical College’s Family and Community Medicine, but it won’t help current smokers overcome their addiction. He runs a smoking cessation clinic.

“I’m in favor of this law. … There is no such thing as good or light tobacco,” Zoorob said. “It’s about nicotine. It’s harmful and addictive.”

Tobacco products, including cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, are responsible for approximately 443,000 deaths and $193 billion in medical expenditures and lost productivity each year in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says. In 2007, Tennessee ranked fifth in the nation for its smoking rate.

Nashville smoker Mike Leonard said he knows light cigarettes aren’t any less addictive. He had quit smoking for seven years — until he tried a light cigarette six months ago. Now he’s buying the cheapest brands available that promote the cigarettes’ taste as light or “low tar.”

“The craving was so strong that I got started again,” he said.

Smokers do believe in the “light” nicotine mythology, said University of Pittsburgh professor Saul Shiffman, a smoking cessation expert and consultant. Forty percent of smokers polled in a recent survey think that a light cigarette is less harmful, he said.

“This (law) is the first step for smokers to realize that lights are not a refuge,” Shiffman said. “I think this will have an impact over time.”

Free samples restricted

But Mary Harper of Nash ville, who smokes Carlton cigarettes, said people will continue smoking because the activity has little to do with wording on a package.

“If people have the mindset to smoke, they will,” she said.

“Mine already tastes light. When people bum off me, they tell me it’s like smoking air. People won’t stop smoking because of the words … only if it gets too expensive.”

Tennessee passed a 40-cents-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes in 2007 and saw an immediate drop in the smoking rate, but only by 1 percentage point.

John Chiaramonte, the American Cancer Society’s governmental relations director for Tennessee, said the best anti-smoking measures keep people from ever getting addicted.

“The marketing has been an issue for a long time,” he said.

Experts say it will take some time to see whether the new marketing regulations, part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, have an impact.

Other aspects of the law include:

• Prohibiting distribution of free samples of cigarettes and restricting free samples of smokeless tobacco products.

• Ending tobacco company sponsorship of athletic, musical or other social events.

• Banning sale of tobacco products in vending machines except in limited adult-only venues.

By Chris Echegaray
THE TENNESSEAN, June 22, 2010

WASHINGTON — New restrictions on mailing tobacco products are about to take effect.

Under a law signed by President Barack Obama in March, limits will be placed on individuals mailing cigarettes, roll-your-own tobacco and smokeless tobacco.

The rules take effect June 29, the Postal Service announced on Thursday.

Mailing these products entirely within the states of Alaska and Hawaii will still be permitted and cigars will still be allowed in the mail.

In addition, the law will still allow mail shipments of tobacco products between businesses in the tobacco industry and mailings to individuals will be permitted for testing or public health purposes.

Individuals will be allowed to send small shipments of tobacco products occasionally, but only via Express Mail and the age of the recipient must be verified, meaning that — other than APO and FPO destinations — they will have to collect the shipment at a postal facility.

New York City used to be the “murder capital” of the country. These days, it looks more like the nation’s health club and spa.

In 2003, the Big Apple outlawed smoking in all bars and restaurants, and in 2006 banished trans fats from local eateries. In 2008, the city began requiring chain restaurants to post the nutritional content of their offerings, meaning New Yorkers would never look at a Big Mac the same way again. And earlier this year, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn introduced legislation that would prohibit restaurants from using salt “in any form” when preparing food.

New York has gotten its share of good-humored ribbing about its “nanny state” tendencies over the past few years. But the city’s latest regulation is getting more serious pushback from a determined source: the tobacco industry.

For the past six months, New York has required retailers to display posters with nauseating photos that show the effects of prolonged tobacco use. The placards include the typical warnings that smoking “causes lung cancer” or “causes tooth decay” but also feature photos of, for example, a blackened lung or a rotted tooth, to drive the point home in an extremely visceral fashion.

On Wednesday, three leading tobacco companies — Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds, and Lorillard — filed a lawsuit contending the signs improperly usurp the federal government’s role of regulating tobacco packaging. The companies also argue that the law violates the First Amendment, since it forces storeowners to display the signs even if they disagree with their message. The New York State Association of Convenience Stores, a non-profit trade association made up of 250 companies, also joined the suit.

“The mandated signs crowd out other advertisements and otherwise dominate the point of sale in many smaller establishments, to the exclusion of merchandise or other messages chosen by the store owners,” the suit says.

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer who is representing the retailers, told The New York Times on Friday that the city “doesn’t have the right…to force other people to adopt its expression.”

Sarah Perl, assistant commissioner for tobacco control at New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, told the Times in December that the posters are intended to target consumers “at the point-of-sale moment.” Perl added that customers have learned to tune out the generic Surgeon General’s warnings that appear on all cigarette packs and advertisements, in large part because those warnings haven’t changed much since their introduction in 1966.

Regardless of the outcome, the suit will have far-reaching consequences even outside New York. Massachusetts, which was in the process of implementing a law requiring similar signs, has a special interest in the case.

“Any education and cessation material we can get out there, we would like to get out on a state level,” Jennifer Manley, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, told Boston.com on Sunday. “We’re going to keep watching New York City closely to see what the outcome is.”

And even if the tobacco companies win this round, they’ll take a hit in 2012, when federal standards will begin mandating more conspicuous warnings on cigarette packages. Unlike the subtle black-and-white boxes currently featured on the sides of cigarette boxes, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires that warnings cover at least 50 percent of the package and that the word “warning” appear in capital letters.

The Act was signed into law by President Obama, himself an occasional smoker, last June.
By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com, June 8, 2010

Egypt, the biggest Arab consumer of cigarettes, is beginning an attempt to ban smoking in public places.

Alexandria is to be Egypt’s first no smoking city, beginning with a ban on lighting up in government buildings.

Egyptians smoke some 19 billion cigarettes each year, prompting concerns for public health.

And Egypt is a nation of smokers with traditional shisha water pipes found in many coffee shops, and persuading Egyptians to quit will be a challenge.

It is common to find people puffing at cigarettes on the train, in office, even in hospitals.

Now in Alexandria that is set to change. The local authorities first plan to enforce an existing law – one that is usually flouted – prohibiting smoking in government buildings.

They say that within two years, the ban will be extended to include cafes.

Dr Hassan Salam from the University of Alexandria is heading the research.

“Smoking in Egypt is very common, unfortunately. Out of every 10 men, four smoke and more and more women are smoking now.

“The statistics show that Egyptians smoke about 19 billion cigarettes a year. It’s a big public health problem.”

Bans on smoking in public places have now been successfully introduced around the world. But officials admit it will be a particular challenge to force Egyptians to quit.

They hope new restrictions will at least make them cut back – and that Alexandria can set an example for the rest of the country.

By Yolande Knell
BBC News, Cairo

A key U.S. Food and Drug Administration panel on tobacco came under fire from ethics and tobacco control watchdogs for what they said are conflicts of interests and misplaced priorities.

A group of 10 prominent tobacco control advocates yesterday launched an alternative scientific panel that they said would try to suggest more effective ways to cut the impact of smoking on the nation’s health. Recommendations include more aggressive anti-smoking media campaigns, dropping the agency’s opposition to electronic cigarettes and limiting cigarette sales to places that bar youths from entering.

“The shadow scientific panel on tobacco represents the loyal opposition,” said Dr. Alan Blum, director of the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society and co-chairman of the group of 10 advocates.

“The loophole-laden FDA bill, its championing by top tobacco manufacturer Philip Morris, the presence of cigarette company representatives on the panel, the initial direction of the new FDA office on tobacco and the dominant role played by the professional FDA bureaucracy warrants an alternative, uncensored viewpoint,” Blum said.

Separately, a nonprofit legal group called Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington called on the FDA to investigate apparent conflicts of interest of two key voting members of the agency’s scientific panel on tobacco. The tobacco industry representatives on the panel cannot vote on its recommendations.

The two voting members — Dr. Neal Benowitz and Dr. Jack Henningfield, — are paid consultants to pharmaceutical companies on smoking cessation products, the nonprofit said.

Several tobacco firms, including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Henrico County-based Star Scientific, are developing lozenges and dissolvable strips that, like drug companies’ products, deliver nicotine, the addictive compound in tobacco.

The companies usually market the products as an alternative to smoking, as opposed to a way of stopping smoking.

One of the key issues that will come before the FDA tobacco panel is when or if tobacco companies can claim any of their products, including lozenges or dissolvable items, reduce the risk of tobacco use.

Earlier this year, Henrico-based Altria Group Inc., which owns Philip Morris USA, the nation’s biggest cigarette company, had protested what it saw as conflicts of interest on the panel. Spokesman William R. Phelps said the company’s letter of protest still reflects its position. He declined to comment on Blum’s alternative panel.

The FDA said all members of its tobacco science advisory panel meet the conflict-of-interest standard specified in the federal act giving it regulatory authority over tobacco.

“Committee members are rigorously screened for conflicts of interest, including non-tobacco-product interests that might be affected by the committee’s work, and are recused where appropriate from committee deliberations that could affect such interests,” spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn, said in a written statement.

“FDA stands behind the membership of this committee and the scientific and public health expertise they will undoubtedly provide.”
By David Ress
June 9, 2010

Manhattan, NY – Three big tobacco companies and trade associations representing NYC convenience stores filed a complaint Wednesday, June 3, 2010, against New York City, claiming the city’s newest anti-smoking advertisements hurt business and violate First Amendment rights of store owners. The New York Times reported that Lorillard, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds are the tobacco companies involved in the lawsuit.

In September 2009, New York City made it mandatory for stores who retail cigarettes and tobacco products “face-to-face” to prominently display tobacco health warning signs. The signs depict cancerous lungs, decayed teeth and brain damage from stroke. Messages such as “Quit smoking today” are plastered on the images.

The cigarette makers claim, “Through words and imagery, the signs urge consumers not to purchase plaintiffs’ products…The mandated signs also restrict plaintiffs’ ability to communicate about lawful products with their adult consumers.”

The federal lawsuit, filed in United States District Court in Manhattan, states the banner rule infringes on the federal government’s authority to regulate cigarette advertising and warnings. The suit says the images are so discouraging, general customers are deterred from making any purchases, such as sandwiches and drinks, within the stores.

New York City’s health department issued a statement explaining that putting warnings where cigarettes were sold is one of the most effective ways to deter people from smoking. It also proves effective in discouraging people from beginning smoking. The statement further read, “By trying to suppress this educational campaign, the tobacco industry is signaling its desire to keep kids in the dark.”

The city has spend approximately $80,000 for the signs over the past eight months.

Cigarettes in New York City cost about $10 a pack.

Once an economic engine whose marketing dollars blazed a trail for much of the sport’s expansion, the era of tobacco sponsorship in NASCAR will be extinguished quietly this month.

New rules enforced by the Food and Drug Administration will prevent cigarette and smokeless tobacco sponsorships in sporting events as of June 22. R.J. Reynolds pumped hundreds of millions into NASCAR’s premier series during a 31-year run as title sponsor with its Winston brand, but tobacco sponsorship shrunk after RJR’s 2003 departure.

Two teams backed by smokeless tobacco will be affected: the Longhorn-sponsored truck of Kevin Harvick Inc. and the Nationwide Series car of Baker-Curb Racing backed by Red Man. Harvick says his truck will run the rest of the season (and has found second-half sponsorship).

The future is less certain for Baker-Curb’s No. 27 Ford, which is eighth in points (with Greg Biffle starting 10 of its 12 races) and has two more races with Red Man. Team co-owner Gary Baker says the company considered staying with the team by using the same paint scheme without its logos but worried it would bring government scrutiny.

Baker says the team is in a mad scramble for funding. “It’s a Herculean task,” he says. “I’ve been in the business side of racing since the 1970s, and it’s never been this brutal. That’s not an indictment of NASCAR; it’s still the best return on investment when properly done.”

Pit notes: Red Bull Racing has swapped the crews of its two Toyotas, moving Ryan Pemberton into the crew chief role on the No. 82 driven by Scott Speed. Jimmy Elledge becomes the crew chief for the No. 83 driven by Casey Mears.. .. Kyle Busch Motorsports is shuttering its No. 56 Toyota in the Camping World Truck Series after driver Tayler Malsam took a Nationwide ride with Braun Racing. … Freestyle motocross star Brian Deegan, a 10-time X Games medalist, has signed with NTS Motorsports to pursue a career in NASCAR.
By Nate Ryan, USA TODAY

The Brumby Labor Government will ban the sale of lolly and fruit flavoured cigarettes in a new bid to further reduce smoking rates among Victorian teenagers.

Announcing the ban today on World No Tobacco Day, Health Minister Daniel Andrews also launched new data showing smoking rates among Victorian teenagers had halved since 2002.

“The Brumby Government has a long history of successful tobacco reforms, which are reducing the impact of tobacco-related harm particularly among children,” Mr Andrews said.

“Even though smoking rates among teenagers are falling, we are continuing to take action by banning the sale of fruit flavoured cigarettes in Victoria.”

Mr Andrews said research has found that fruit and confectionary flavoured cigarettes were particularly appealing to young females.

“Research by Cancer Council Victoria shows that 40 per cent of 16-17 year olds females agree that lolly or fruit flavoured cigarettes made them curious to try them, and one third of males indicated the products would tempt them to try cigarettes,” he said.

“This new ban will come into force to ensure teenagers do not start smoking through the lure of fruit and lolly flavoured cigarettes.”

Mr Andrews said the 2008 Australian Secondary Student’s Alcohol and Drug Survey showed smoking rates among students are at their lowest level in more than 20 years.

“Six per cent of 12-15 year olds and 14 per cent of 16-17 year olds are current smokers – half the number of teens who were smoking in 2002,” he said.

“This means that there are around 9000 fewer young Victorians smoking regularly compared to 2005.

“This survey reveals that young people are more aware of the dangers of smoking, showing that the tobacco control initiatives of the Brumby Government and our partners have had a significant impact on smoking behaviours.”

Other findings include:

* A significant reduction in the number of students trying cigarettes, with 71 per cent of students having never smoked compared to 62 per cent in 2005;

* Dramatic increases in students’ knowledge of health effects from smoking, with 80 per cent of students aware that smoking caused disease in fingers and toes in 2008 compared to just 37 per cent in 2005; and,

* Significant reductions in the number of students who believe smokers are more popular than non-smokers. 14 per cent of students thought this in 2008 compared to 28 per cent in 1996.

Mr Andrews said the ban on fruit-flavoured cigarettes built on the Brumby Labor Government’s long-standing commitment to reduce tobacco-related harm through legislative reforms.

“The Victorian Tobacco Control Strategy 2008-2013 has set an ambitious target to reduce the number of Victorian adults who smoke to 13.8 per cent by 2013,” he said.

“The Strategy includes a number of actions and legislative reforms designed to reduce childhood exposure to tobacco smoke, including a ban on smoking in cars when a person under 18 is present and a ban on smoking on government school grounds.

“In order to prevent the uptake of smoking by young Victorians we have also banned the sale of tobacco at temporary events and increased the fines for selling tobacco to children.

“The ban on the display of tobacco products in retail outlets commencing on 1 January next year will further protect them from exposure to tobacco marketing and promotion.

“We believe that these initiatives will further help to reduce the number of young Victorians who adopt the habit and make it easier to quit.”

Mr Andrews said the 2010 State Budget provided an extra $3.5 million to Quit Victoria to support the Quitline service.

“This funding will enhance the current service through the employment, training and professional development of Indigenous Quitline Counsellors, support further Quitline data systems improvements and upgrade the telephone system, including voice-recording technologies,” he said.

The proposed tobacco control law being mulled by the Lebanese Parliamentary Administration and Justice Committee has stirred debate between health-minded civil society activists, lobbyists from the tobacco and advertising industries keen to protect their commercial interests and a public skeptical of how serious the government is about enforcing any real tobacco control policy.

Arguments have covered not only health concerns but also Lebanon’s economy, asking whether or not the country can afford to lose the cash raised by the tobacco industry, specifically in the agricultural, hospitality and advertising sectors.

The controversial legislation would be surprisingly strict compared to the current law, calling for a ban on smoking in indoor public places including bars and restaurants, forbidding advertising of all tobacco-related products and insisting on pictorial warning labels on cigarette packs equivalent to 40 percent of the packaging size.

Proposed as a series of amendments to a draft law from 2006, this version revisits the country’s stance on tobacco following its commitment to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), an international treaty that Lebanon signed in 2004 and ratified the next year. The FCTC arose as a global response to scientific data, albeit from the 1960s, which revealed the gravity of the health risks associated with tobacco use and is the treaty that prompted tobacco control legislation across the world.

Implementation of the draft tobacco control law would allow Lebanon to catch-up on its FCTC obligations, as the country has already missed the 2008 compliance deadline for implementing larger warning labels, the 2009 deadline to ban advertising and the 2010 target to ban smoking in indoor public places.

According to George Saade, program coordinator at the health ministry’s National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP), the tentative deadline for parliamentary approval of a national tobacco control policy is May 31, coincidentally “World No Tobacco Day.”

Smokey quantification

A study released last month by the American University of Beirut’s (AUB) Tobacco Control Research Group — authored by Jad Chaaban, Nadia Naamani and Nisreen Salti — has quantified a number of previously undocumented tobacco-related figures.

For starters, the study reports that 40.3 percent of Lebanese are smokers. With cigarette consumption reaching an estimated rate of 12.4 packs per person per month, Lebanon also has one of the highest overall consumption rates in the world. The figure is three times that of Syria, and 12 times that of Singapore.

Looking at the overall benefits to the economy, the net revenue from tobacco is estimated at $271 million, taking into account tax revenues, subsidies to Lebanon’s 24,000 tobacco farmers, advertising, revenues from licensing and all other net gains for the government, international tobacco companies, distributors and retailers, and the Regie du Tabac et Tombacs — the state-run entity under the Ministry of Finance, which oversees Lebanon’s tobacco industry.

When evaluating overall costs to the economy, the sum includes health care costs, productivity loss, environmental costs due to forest fires and street waste clean-up, totaling $326.7 million, around 1.1 percent of Lebanon’s GDP. This figure is relatively high; in Egypt, where smoking prevalence is also high, the costs represent 0.7 percent of GDP.

The balance of tobacco’s revenue and costs leaves the country with a net loss of some $55.4 million. The real figure could be even higher since the study excluded costs related to regular exposure to second-hand smoke, as well as excluding many smoking related diseases due to a lack of sufficient data.

“What is obvious is that Lebanon’s economy is losing money on smoking,” said Chaaban.

According to Public Health Researcher Jade Khalife at the Ministry of Health’s NTCP, international data strongly supports the economic assertion that employers will benefit from increased tobacco control in the form of improved employee productivity, reduced hiring costs and lower building maintenance costs. Khalife raised the example of Ireland, where smoke-free environments saved employers the equivalent of 1.1 to 1.7 percent of GDP.

In the hospitality sector, studies conducted in other countries generally show that banning smoking in indoor public places either does not affect, or actually increases, revenue for restaurants and bars. In Ireland, the first European country to ban smoking in enclosed workspaces in 2004, a study in the Irish Journal of Medical Science found that a year after the ban was enacted customer numbers in Dublin pubs had increased by 11 percent.

More recently in Turkey, hospitality sector revenue rose some 5 percent in 2009 following a public indoor ban. And in Lebanon, apart from the fact that the majority of Lebanese are non-smokers, a recent survey done by the NTCP underlined that restaurants could also see increased business from a ban, with 56 percent of Lebanese smokers reporting that they are bothered by smoke in restaurants, and 98 percent recognizing that second-hand smoke is harmful to them.

The American University of Beirut is ahead of the game and has already designated specific smoking areas

“In our bars and restaurants 60 to 70 percent of the people are smoking,” estimated Gemmayze Development Committee member Paddy Cochrane, who is coincidentally Irish-Lebanese. “After experiencing the ban in Ireland and being a non-smoker myself, I think it’s a fantastic idea, but as a bar owner, I’m not there to tell people what they can and cannot do. But if the government passes a law, it’s different.”

Although restaurants and bars would lose money made off of the promotion and sale of cigarettes in their venues, the impact is negligible, added Cochrane.

No more Marlboro man

The advertising sector also stands to lose from the proposed legislation. According to AUB’s study, tobacco advertising comprised 4.5 percent of total advertising spending in Lebanon in 2009, a figure roughly coinciding with an estimate of 4 percent provided by the President of the Lebanon Chapter of the International Advertising Association (IAA) George Jabbour. Research company IPSOS reported that tobacco advertising made up 1 percent ($7.2 million) of the total media advertising, excluding ‘below the line’ advertising, such as promotions, handouts and events – which the industry would rather see exempt from any ban.

According to Jabbour, advertisers need time adjust to the change.

“We need a grace period. We have employees that we cannot just throw away. We need to restructure,” he said.

“No one is saying it should be stopped as a legislation. But we don’t want this legislation to just be propaganda. We don’t want the advertising industry to be the scapegoat,” said Jabour, concerned that ban or no ban, smokers will carry on regardless, leaving advertisers to carry the can.

Skeptics argue that smoking is as much a part of the local culture as general disregard for the law. In focus group studies conducted by the AUB Tobacco Control Research Group, even researchers in favor of the policy had to admit that the most frequent concern about the policy implementation cited by participants was the willingness of the general public to abide by a law, even if it passes. Last month NTCP’s Saade released a statement saying that fines for breaking the law may reach $663 for establishments and $33 for individual smokers. But who would implement this remains undetermined as yet.

Trying to ban smoking in public areas in Lebanon

More recently, a modification of the draft law regarding the public ban was introduced to provide exemptions for public establishments that make separate smoking and non-smoking areas. This move drew sharp criticism from the AUB Mechanical Engineering Department, which “strongly advises against any such exemption because it has been shown through numerous scientific studies that partitioning indoor spaces into smoking and non-smoking areas does not work, even when advanced ventilation and filtration technologies are used.”

A similar attempt to impose separated areas in Spain failed and the country is now considering a complete ban, after many establishments already invested in redesigning their businesses.

Applying policy… maybe

The AUB Tobacco Control Research Group also strongly warned that “multinational tobacco companies have consciously thwarted previous policy attempts to limit the reach of this harmful product… The industry should not be allowed to weaken tobacco control policy.”

While the NTCP estimates that 3,500 Lebanese die each year due to tobacco use, the public health aspects of the tobacco control law, and even the economic ones, have thus far been trumped by political interests in the halls of government. Lebanon’s three largest tobacco importers, Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and Japan International Tobacco, declined the opportunity to contribute to this article.

Both Major League Baseball (MLB) officials and members of Congress would like to see all tobacco use by players banned, but the player’s union will have the final say when the current collective-bargaining agreement expires next year.

MLB Fanhouse reported May 3 that while smoking is banned in dugouts and on the field, about one-third of MLB players use smokeless tobacco. Use of smokeless tobacco is now banned in the minor leagues, but not the majors.

“It’s not something I’m proud of or something I want to continue doing,” said San Francisco Giants outfielder Mark DeRosa. “It’s like any addiction. It calms me down before I go to the plate. You tell yourself that. Even though you know it’s not reality, it’s my reality.”

Congress recently held hearings on tobacco use in baseball and urged MLB to enact a ban. MLB Executive Vice President Rob Manfried called that “a laudable goal” but said the union would have to agree.

“If it’s legal in the United States of America, you can’t say someone can’t do it,” said Giants reliever Jeremy Affeldt, who does not use tobacco. “It’s a free country. You start going down those roads, taking away freedoms this country is based on … I think we are seeing signs of more and more of that happening and we need to back off.”

However, many employers prohibit workers from activities that are legal in other settings, and some players said that allowing the use of smokeless tobacco projects a bad image for the game. “Sometimes when I’m watching the games you see a guy throw in a big dip and the camera focuses in on it, I know kids are watching,” said A’s infielder Eric Chavez. “You want guys to be able to do what they want. Everyone is an adult, but you also have to be aware of the message that you send to kids.”

Japan Tobacco Inc., the world’s third-largest publicly traded cigarette maker, fell the most in two months in Tokyo trading after the U.K. antitrust regulator fined its unit for fixing prices between 2001 and 2003.

Japan Tobacco fell 2.6 percent to 319,000 yen, at the 3 p.m. close on the Tokyo Stock Exchange, the biggest drop since Feb. 9.

Gallaher Group Ltd., a unit of Japan Tobacco, was fined 50.4 million pounds ($77 million) for coordinating cigarette prices with 11 other companies including Imperial Tobacco Group Plc and Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s Asda unit, the U.K. Office of Fair Trade said on April 16. The regulator fined the companies a combined 225 million pounds.

“Any fines are negative,” said Mitsuo Shimizu, a deputy general manager at Cosmo Securities Co.’s equity division in Tokyo. “Some investors worry that Japan Tobacco’s earnings may deteriorate.”

Gallaher and five other companies were given reductions to their fines because they admitted liability when they received the OFT’s so-called statement of objections in April 2008.

Japan Tobacco in 2008 set aside money for a possible fine by the U.K. authority, spokeswoman Yuka Sugimoto said. The actual fine was 114 million pounds less than Japan Tobacco’s provision, she said.

WASHINGTON, – U.S. advisers heard evidence on the effects of menthol cigarettes on Tuesday as they began a year-long review

of the popular but controversial flavoring under the government’s new tobacco powers.

Smoked by about 19 million Americans, minty menthol cigarettes are under attack from health advocates who say the taste can be more enticing and possibly addicting than regular cigarettes.

At the start of a two-day public meeting, a committee of outside experts that advises the Food and Drug Administration began hearing data on menthol’s impact on smokers’ use and health. The panel is due to issue a report by March 2011.

Menthols account for more than a quarter of cigarette sales and are a top choice among black smokers. A U.S. government survey showed 83 percent of adult black smokers chose menthol, compared with 23 percent of whites.

FDA scientists presented findings to the panel from data stretching back decades in some cases on the health effects, marketing and use of menthol cigarettes.

A key question for the panel is whether menthol lures children or others to pick up a smoking habit more than regular cigarettes. Anti-smoking activists say menthol’s mild anesthetic property masks the harshness of tobacco, making it easier to start smoking and harder to quit.

Dr. Joshua Rising, an FDA scientist, said research showed menthol was a more likely choice for younger people just starting to smoke compared with others who had been smoking for at least a year. But limited data “do not suggest that menthol cigarettes are associated with an earlier age of initiation,” he said.

The FDA could eventually ban or phase out menthol cigarettes, although some anti-smoking advocates and industry analysts are skeptical that will happen. Stronger warnings also are a possibility.

“Clearly the issues won’t all be easy,” FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg told the panel, which also will tackle the use of dissolvable tobacco products and other matters at future meetings. Tuesday’s meeting was the panel’s first.

Any government action against menthol could be a blow to Lorillard (LO.N), the nation’s third-largest cigarette company and maker of top-selling menthol brand Newport.

The 2009 law that gave the FDA oversight of tobacco products banned other cigarette flavors such as chocolate, clove and fruit that could lure children. But Congress exempted menthol, the most popular flavoring with about 27 percent of the cigarette market, and instead called for an FDA review.

Dr. Jonathan Samet, the chairman of the FDA panel, said the advisers “got a first glimpse” of the available research and face the challenge of determining “which of these studies are relevant to the current questions.”

Officials from the manufacturers were expected to speak to the panel on Wednesday. Altria Group Inc’s (MO.N) Philip Morris unit sells menthol versions of its Marlboro brand, while Reynolds American (RAI.N) markets menthol-flavored Camels.

Lorillard said in a statement there was no evidence menthol cigarettes were more addictive or harmful than others.

“The science is clear and compelling that there is no differing health risk between menthol and non-menthol products,” Lorillard Senior Vice President Bill True said.

Altria had no comment ahead of the company’s presentation to the committee, spokesman William Phelps said.

Reynolds spokesman David Howard said the company would participate in the menthol review and “believed that collaboration and open dialogue is the best approach.”

The FDA advisory committee is a 12-member panel that includes three nonvoting industry representatives. A second panel meeting is set for summer and will include an analysis of industry documents.
By Lisa Richwine, Reuters
March 30, 2010

WASHINGTON — The federal government took its first sweeping regulatory actions Thursday to combat tobacco use in the United States — particularly among youth.

The federal Food and Drug Administration issued regulations banning the sale of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco to minors and ending most vending-machine and self-service sales of tobacco products.

The regulations also prohibit all remaining tobacco industry sponsorships of sports and entertainment events, outlaw the sale of packs with fewer than 20 cigarettes, and bar the giveaway or sale of items with tobacco logos.

In addition, audio ads for tobacco products will not be allowed to include music or other sounds that aren’t voices.

The FDA also is asking for public comment on ways to restrict outdoor advertising of tobacco products.

“The historic rule that we’re issuing today … will help our kids stay healthy by making it harder for the tobacco companies to target them with harmful and addictive products.” Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said at a press conference.

Public health and anti-smoking groups praised the FDA’s new rules Thursday.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said in a statement that the regulations are a“long-overdue step to stop the tobacco industry’s predatory targeting of our children that continues even today.”

Cheryl Heaton, president and CEO of Legacy, an anti-smoking group, said in a statement that the rules were a key step “toward reducing the influence of Big Tobacco on today’s youth, and helping to further create a culture in which young people reject tobacco, and smokers receive the tools and support they need to quit.”

Roger Quarles, president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, based in Lexington, Ky., said the new rules were “no big shock.”

“As leaf growers, we don’t manufacture a consumer product, so we’re pretty much neutral on this,” he said.

As to whether the new rules would affect consumption of tobacco products, Quarles said: “It could have a slight impact but, quite frankly, I think it would be very minimal.”

The regulations are nearly identical to those the FDA tried to impose in 1996. The Supreme Court subsequently struck them down, on grounds that the agency had no specific authority from Congress to regulate tobacco products.

Congress last year granted the FDA that authority in landmark tobacco-control legislation that President Barack Obama signed last June.

One regulatory provision being challenged in court requires tobacco ads in teen-oriented publications to be in black and white only. A federal judge in Kentucky ruled against the provision, and the FDA said it will not enforce it while an appeal is pending.

The new federal regulations provide a uniform set of rules for companies and retailers to follow. Until now, for example, there has been no federal ban on the sale of tobacco products to minors, though there are state prohibitions.

The rules will be published in The Federal Register Friday and take effect June 22, exactly a year after Obama signed the legislation.

The government actions are being closely watched in tobacco-growing states such as Kentucky, the nation’s second-largest producer.

Penalties for violating the new regulations include fines, seizures of property and criminal prosecutions. Enforcement will be done by the FDA, as well as by state agencies that contract to work with the FDA.

Some of the new rules are similar to provisions in a 1998 settlement among the states and major tobacco companies. But the regulations are more comprehensive, covering all tobacco companies, not just those in the settlement, according to anti-smoking advocates.

In addition, the new regulations in many cases go farther. For example, the national settlement outlawed some, but not all, events sponsored by tobacco companies. The new regulations impose a full ban.

The FDA already has taken steps to restrict some forms of tobacco products. Last September the agency complied with the new anti-smoking law by banning cigarettes with candy, fruit, clove or herb flavors.

“For too long, our country has been forced to endure the overwhelming disease and emotional costs of tobacco,” said Assistant Health and Human Services Secretary Howard Koh, a physician.

Almost 450,000 Americans die every year from smoking-related diseases, and treatment of those diseases costs $100 billion.

Bill Phelps, spokesman for Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest cigarette maker, said the company is reviewing the new regulations.

David Howard, spokesman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., said the manufacturer anticipated the rules because the new law required them.

Pointing to a University of Michigan survey, Howard said tobacco use among young people has declined almost 50 percent since 1996.

“We look forward to working with the FDA on this and on matters of interest moving forward,” he said.

Reynolds is one of the companies challenging the black-and-white-only rule for advertising, arguing that it is an infringement on free speech rights.

Researchers declared that most of immigrant youths frequently become smokers. For example Quebec is turning immigrant children and teens into smokers. Especially those immigrants who live in disadvantaged inner-city regions.

In general most of kids who come in Canada from other countries do not smoke at the beginning. But after living 11 to 12 years in this state start smoking cigarettes and then it becomes an addictive, according to a recent study.

Evidently, a lot of immigrant children stay in Canada, which then they start smoking. One main cause why they start smoking is to make friends. Or maybe they are attracted by smoking just occasionally when their friends hanging around the corners after school are lighting up.

Contrary to popular observation, immigrant families who arrive in Canada tend to be more educated and healthy, because they have to pass a physical exam for to be accepted into Canada and, as a general rule, most do not smoke.

But unfortunately after coming in Canada, many immigrants remove into poor neighborhoods where smoking is more abundant.

So, over time, immigrants adopt the local residents’ unhealthy habits. Within 10 years, this so-called “healthy immigrant” influence disappears.

Researchers aim was to test the smoking phenomenon on immigrant children. They investigated almost 2,000 Montreal children, age 9 to 12, who either were immigrants or who had one parent born outside Canada.

At the end of investigation the researchers discovered that 21 percent of immigrant children became smokers after living in Canada for six to 10 years. This percents rose to 28 percent after living here for 11 to 12 years.

Over time, the influence of smoking among immigrant children became identical to that of Quebec-born youth.

Even statistics showed that more teenagers in Quebec are turning to smoking. It also estimated that 45,000 school-age children immigrate to Canada with their parents each year.

But this survey found that one in five teenagers age 15 to 19 smoke cigarettes last year – an increase of three percent from 2008.

Researchers concluded that environments have a significant impact on starting smoking.

Copyright © 2010 Cigarettesreviews.com. All rights reserved.

The street-front patio of the A971 bar in Tokyo’s Midtown centre confronts smokers with an odd demand: “No cigarettes outside, please smoke indoors.” Burly security guards are employed to enforce the rule, politely but firmly ushering smokers out of the brisk evening breeze and back into the bar, where their fumes swirl thick and suffocating. In a few months’ time, their job may be reversed.

The A971 owners are merely protecting their business: they cannot be seen to encourage lawbreaking. The Minato ward of Tokyo is one of the few boroughs that have banned smoking on the streets – a measure primarily designed to protect pedestrians from having their suit cuffs and handbags singed by cigarettes held at waist level on crowded pavements.

But like everywhere else in Tokyo, there is absolute freedom to smoke indoors and only grudging perception of health risks. Among developed countries, Japan is a true smokers’ paradise. The nation’s 30 million smokers are waited-on by nearly 600,000 cigarette vending machines. Health advice on packets is more friendly recommendation than doom-laden warning. The dangers of passive smoking are treated as if they have only been identified by cranky foreign science. A rich variety of public buildings – including hospitals and schools – allow smoking.

Tokyo may be the gourmet capital of the world, with more Michelin-starred restaurants than any other city, but most eateries serve their prized creations through a stinking haze of tobacco combustion. Most small and medium sized companies will allow people to smoke at their desks. Meetings with executives tend to be held over imposing crystal ashtrays. Japan’s Fair Trade Commissioner is among a number of senior political figures who chain smokes through meetings but wheels a mobile extractor fan up to the table out of consideration for his guests.

But all that may be about to change. Next month, a panel of health ministry experts will present a report that seems destined to call for a ban on smoking in public places. There will be exemptions of course: restaurants and bars are already lobbying hard to be left out of the ban, for fear of losing custom. There has been much talk – chiefly from Japan Tobacco – of “smokers’ rights”. Companies may get away with creating special smoking rooms.

But the extraordinary step is that a ban is being discussed at all. And it is a feature, say political analysts, of the new Democratic Party of Japan government and its stated aim of overturning much of the Japanese status quo. The right to smoke anywhere and everywhere in Japan has historically been defended by the old guard of Japanese politics – the cantankerous veterans of the Liberal Democratic Party which held on to power for more than five decades. While they were in charge, there was never any chance of a ban – not least because most of them were smokers and because the government remains a 50.01 per cent shareholder of Japan Tobacco.

The DPJ, though is much younger – both as a party and in its constituent members. It has fewer historical ties to big business and, for the moment at least, can afford to set policy without seemingly caring too much about the old vested interest that once gripped Japanese politics so remorselessly. DPJ MPs are, in the main, drawn from an age-stratum of Japanese society that began to shun smoking some years ago. 82 per cent of Japanese men were smokers in the 1960s, but that has fallen to less than one third of the male population.

Many have already written off the scale of political revolution implied by the election of the DPJ last year. Policy execution has been disappointing. Clear ideas have been hard to identify. The party’s leaders have already seen their popularity falling in what pass for opinion polls in Japan. But a smoking ban, should it come about, deserves recognition that the country did take a significant step away from old Japan last autumn.

Times Online
March 3, 2010

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced the names of the nine voting members of its new Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, MedPage reported March 2.

Jonathan Samet, M.D., will chair the committee; he is the director of the Institute for Global Health at the University of Southern California.

The panel will provide advice, information and recommendations on tobacco-related issues, such as the inclusion of menthol in cigarettes — the topic of its first meeting later this month. Other topics the committee could tackle include tobacco marketing to youth, cigarette additives, and tobacco industry research.

“The breadth of knowledge amassed by this highly-qualified group will supplement and enhance the agency’s understanding of tobacco control, prevention, and health promotion issues,” said Lawrence R. Deyton, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products.

The other voting members of the committee are:

* Neal Benowitz, M.D., chief of the Division of Pharmacology at the University of California at San Francisco

* Mark S. Clanton, M.D., chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society

* Gregory N. Connolly, M.D., acting director of Public Health Practice at the Harvard School of Public Health

* Karen L. DeLeeuw, MSW, director of the Center for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention at Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment

* Dorothy Hatsukami, PhD, Professor of Psychiatry, Tobacco Use Research Center, director of University of Minnesota in Minneapolis

* Patricia Nez Henderson, M.D., MPH, vice president of Black Hills Center for American Indian Health in Rapid City, S.D.

* Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D., vice president of research and health policy at Pinney Associates of Bethesda, Md.

* Melanie Wakefield, PhD, director of the Centerfor Behavioral Research in Cancer in Victoria, Australia.

Three additional non-voting members will come from the tobacco industry.

A U.S. Court of Appeals ruling reinstates the FDA’s authority — at least temporarily — to stop e-cigarettes from entering the country after a lower court ruled that the agency does not have the authority to regulate electronic cigarettes, even though Congress granted the agency the power to regulate tobacco products in 2009.

The FDA filed the appeal after a U.S. District Court judge granted an injunction on Jan. 14 that blocked the FDA from stopping electronic cigarettes from entering the country. The appeals court granted a stay (1-page PDF; About PDFs) of the district court’s injunction, pending an appeal. The stay reinstates the FDA’s authority.

District Court Judge Richard Leon said in the Jan. 14 ruling that the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act passed last year does give the agency the authority to regulate “any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption.” That could include e-cigarettes, which contain nicotine extracted from tobacco.

FDA officials, however, say they would prefer to regulate e-cigarettes as drug delivery devices rather than as tobacco products because treating e-cigarettes as the former would give the agency far broader control, including the ability to block importation of the devices and their components.

The agency said in its appeal that it has regulated nicotine products, including nicotine patches, for years under the drug and device provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA. The agency argued that tobacco legislation enacted last year “expressly excludes from the definition of ‘tobacco product’ any article that is a drug, device or combination product under the FDCA, and provides that such articles shall be subject to regulation under the pre-existing FDCA provisions.”

An agency spokesperson declined to comment on the case, which is ongoing.

According to court records, the dispute between the FDA and e-cigarette distributors started in September 2008 — before the tobacco legislation passed — when the agency put a hold on two shipments of e-cigarettes at Los Angeles International Airport. A month later, FDA officials issued notices of detention on the grounds that shipments belonging to Smoking Everywhere Inc. — one of the companies that later sued the FDA — appeared to be “adulterated, misbranded or otherwise in violation” of the FDCA.

In July 2009, the FDA issued a warning about e-cigarettes to consumers and physicians after the Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis in the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said samples from the products had detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals.

Manufacturers have touted the smokeless products, which are battery-operated devices that turn nicotine and other chemicals into a vapor that is inhaled by the user, as safer than conventional cigarettes. However, public health officials have countered that the products have not been adequately tested and should not be marketed to young people.

The Food and Drug Administration yesterday named nine members to a scientific panel that will advise the federal agency on regulation of tobacco products.

Issues such as nicotine content, reduced-risk products and the health effects of menthol cigarettes will go before the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, which includes some of the nation’s top experts on tobacco, nicotine and addiction, and some long-time tobacco-control advocates.

The advisory panel, “has enormous responsibility to advise the FDA on a broad range of scientific issues,” said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Seven of the members are medical doctors or health professionals, one represents state governments and one the general public. The group will hold public meetings at least four times a year.

Congress approved legislation last year that for the first time gave the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products. The agency is now setting up a Center for Tobacco Products.

Among the advisory panel’s first major tasks will be to prepare a report for the FDA on the health impacts of menthol cigarettes, especially on children and ethnic minorities.

That will be the main subject of the group’s first meeting, scheduled for March 30-31.

The panel also will tackle some potentially thorny issues such as whether to approve some tobacco products as “modified-risk” products that could be marketed as having reduced toxins and fewer health risks than conventional products such as cigarettes.

One tobacco company, Henrico County-based Star Scientific Inc., said last month it had applied to the FDA for approval to advertise a type of smokeless tobacco lozenge as a modified-risk product.

The panel’s tasks will include advising the agency on testing and standards for those products, said Jack Henningfield, a psychologist from Maryland and expert on addiction who was named to the scientific advisory board.

“This is important because for decades we had the light cigarettes debacle, where cigarettes were marketed as light and lowtar on the premise and promise they would be less harmful,” Henningfield said. “It took a couple of decades to figure out they were not less harmful. Part of the charge to the FDA is to make sure that never happens again.”

The panel’s chairman is Dr. Jonathan M. Samet, a professor at the University of Southern California’s school of medicine and the author, contributor or editor of numerous articles on tobacco and health, including several U.S. Surgeon General reports on tobacco.

The advisory group also will have three non-voting members, including one member from the tobacco manufacturing industry, one member representing tobacco growers, and one representative from the small business manufacturing industry.

Those members were not named yesterday, and the FDA said in a statement that “selection of the three non-voting members representing industry interests is ongoing.”

David Sylvia, a spokesman for Henrico-based Altria Group Inc., said the company had no comment on the selection process for tobacco industry representatives.

Altria, which supported FDA regulation of the industry, is the parent company of cigarette maker Philip Morris USA, cigar maker John Middleton Inc, and smokeless tobacco maker U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co.

“We think that the establishment of the tobacco products scientific advisory committee brings an opportunity to provide what we think is really important, which is a science-based regulatory agenda,” Sylvia said.
JOHN REID BLACKWELL, TIMES-DISPATCH
March 2, 2010

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) came into effect, marking an important milestone in public health history on 26th February in 2005.

Already 168 out of 195 eligible parties have joined the treaty through ratification or accession, and more are set to join. Sri Lanka too ratified the FCTC in 2003 expressing its willingness to join the treaty.

Many countries have implemented effective evidence based measures to decrease prevalence of tobacco use and save lives through banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship; through protecting citizens from tobacco smoke exposure; and through mandating pictorial warnings on cigarette packs.

The FCTC is a remarkable achievement because:

It is the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of the WHO, a resounding recognition that international law has a critical role to play in global health.

The treaty catalyzed global action, elevating the importance of tobacco control as a global health and political issue, stimulating policy change at the domestic level and bringing new public and private resources into the field.

The FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted strong guidelines on four of the convention’s key substantive articles, and work is underway on the development of a number of other guidelines and a protocol.

However, for each success there is an equally difficult ongoing challenge because universal FCTC implementation is still far away, particularly with respect to tobacco taxation, control of illicit trade of tobacco products and any measures that require resources, such as public education and cessation.

Richer parties have also made no significant effort to ensure tobacco control efforts in low and middle income countries receive appropriate technical and financial assistance. FCA would like to see countries include tobacco control in their development agendas to boost funding in this crucial area.

While tobacco kills more than 5 million people a year, tobacco control programs are grossly underfunded. As a result, during the next five years FCA will focus on improving FCTC implementation and increasing resources to adequately fund implementation of measures and policies that are compliant with the treaty.

Framework Convention Alliance would also like to see more stringent measures in place such as 90 per cent graphic warnings on cigarette packages; bans on cigarette package displays and duty free tobacco sales; generic packaging; higher tobacco taxes; more cessation methods; and an effective protocol on illicit trade in tobacco products.

FCA director Laurent Huber said that over the past five years, the number of deaths caused by tobacco has increased and not decreased. “Tobacco use remains high in low and middle income countries and it is increasing among women and young people,” he said. “We have five years of good progress on policy but deaths due to tobacco use continue to rise. Governments need to fund their policy promises to stem the tide of tobacco deaths.”

The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to allow the government to seek nearly $300-billion from the tobacco industry due to a half century of deception. We spoke with a local tobacco farmer about this issue and what might happen if the government gets the money.

The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to allow the government to seek nearly $300-billion from the tobacco industry due to a half century of deception.

We spoke with a local tobacco farmer about this issue and what might happen if the government gets the money.

“As far as the 50 states, Kentucky ranks the highest in tobacco production, and if something like this were to happen, there’d be many families affected by this,” said Joel Cook, a local tobacco farmer from Simpson County.

Cook just recently sold the last of his tobacco crop, and he’ll start replanting mid-March to once again start the year-long process of growing tobacco.

“As a tobacco farmer, I’d have to strongly stand against that,” said Cook. “It sounds like they’re just trying to take the money away from the tobacco industry for the well-being of others, and I don’t think the tobacco industry should be penalized for anything that’s happened in the past.”

The government says the industry has cost millions of Americans their health and lives.

“Everybody’s aware of the health risks,” said Cook. “It’s on every pack of cigarettes. Smoking is a hazard to your health.”

If the government receives the money, Cook says it would poorly affect the industry which is already going through a crucial time.

“As a burley tobacco farmer, I’m seeing a decrease in the amount of pounds I’m able to grow in this current coming year,” said Cook. “I feel that if the tobacco industry is struck by anything like this, it could really take effect on the tobacco farmer.”

Cook, being one of those farmers, says there may be other crops or cattle he could fall back on.

“There are areas to increase so I can rely on that for my income, but as of right now, tobacco is very critical to my income and putting food on the table for my family,” said Cook.

The decade-long fight went to the high court this past Friday.

While the government wants $300-billion, leading tobacco companies want the court to throw out rulings holding that the industry illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Kanawha County health officials are setting themselves up to lead the push for statewide smoking regulations.

But they need to start small.

“It’s got to be done very cautiously,” said Dr. Rahul Gupta, chief health officer for the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. “You’ve got to have the right timing for it, and you’ve got to have public opinion on your side.”

Last week, Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, introduced a bill banning smoking statewide. But Foster conceded the bill had little chance of passing, and was introduced mainly to spur discussion of smoking as a public health issue.

Foster believes the key to passing workable statewide smoking regulations — that aren’t rife with exemptions — is in concentrating on passing tough county-by-county regulations. By the time 35 or 40 counties pass tougher smoking bans, Foster thinks there will be enough public support to go statewide.

“It will be politically doable by then,” said Foster, a surgeon and hospital administrator.

Gupta agrees that grass-roots support is necessary before lawmakers can be convinced to pass statewide smoking regulations. “You can do it top-down or bottom-up,” he said. “What we’re proposing is bottom-up.”

Kanawha County officials passed a countywide smoking ban that includes bars and restaurants in 2008. Now that residents and business owners are used to the idea of a smoke-free environment, county health officials want to expand their duties to include a comprehensive approach to tobacco use in the county.

In addition to enforcing anti-smoking regulations, health officials want to start educational programs to talk about the dangers of smoking and provide services to help smokers who want to quit. Eventually, Gupta wants to get state funding for smoking cessation services that go beyond pamphlets and provide counseling, nicotine patches or other supplies to help smokers quit smoking.

Gupta wants Kanawha County to serve as a model that other counties in the state can follow for their own smoking regulations. Cabell County officials passed a smoking ban that includes bars on Jan. 27. Kanawha County health officials have been talking with officials in Monongalia County about smoking regulations similar to Kanawha County’s.

Gupta admits current smoking regulations aren’t perfect. Smoking is still allowed in Kanawha County bingo halls under state law. And lawmakers still smoke in the state Capitol in Charleston.

“They’ve basically exempted themselves from the county policy,” Gupta said. Members of the Kanawha County health board voted Thursday to publicly censure the Legislature for smoking in the statehouse.

But once enough counties pass smoking bans, Gupta thinks there will be enough public support to go to the Legislature for strong statewide smoking regulations.

“It won’t be in the next year or two,” he said. “We do need state regulations for smoking, but now is not the time.”

What county health officials don’t want is a statewide smoking ban full of exemptions that doesn’t allow counties to pass tougher rules. That’s why tough county policies already in place and public support for tough regulations are important before pushing for statewide legislation.

“I think we’re well-positioned to start to push this a little bit,” Gupta said.

By Rusty Marks
February 7, 2010

Simon Chapman, professor of public health at the University of Sydney, has been taking a close look at a new report, prepared by Price Waterhouse Coopers for British American Tobacco, and has found it has more holes than a slab of Swiss cheese (or whichever metaphor you prefer).

He has given the report a big, fat F.

Chapman writes:

“Australia’s tobacco industry is having a major attack of the vapours following recommendations made by the government’s Preventive Health Task Force last year. Its chief concerns are with a proposal to push the price of a pack of cigarettes to $20 in two tax increases, bringing us into line with UK and Irish prices, but still around $3 behind Norway.

The other would see local industry internationally humiliated as being the first anywhere in the world to have to sell cigarettes in plain boxes with only the brand name to differentiate the products. Just like prescribed drugs have always been packaged. Local management don’t want that blight on their CVs.

The bogeyman of a booming black market in tobacco is the frontline of its attack on the tax rise. British American Tobacco has got out of the blocks in 2010 last Friday releasing a commissioned Price Waterhouse Coopers report on the use of illegal, tax-avoiding tobacco. I will be setting the report this year as an exercise in critical appraisal for my public health students. It is quite something.

BAT thinks tobacco products are already outrageously expensive because smokers are already turning into criminals and buying hot goods from … well, just about everywhere tobacco is sold.  So much in fact, that $624 million in tobacco tax is being avoided, they say.

We learn that half of smokers are aware of illegal tobacco and according to a Roy Morgan study commissioned by BAT, half of these (ie: 25% of all smokers) have purchased it. So if you believe the report, 12.3% of all tobacco now consumed in Australia is illegally purchased: about 1 in 8 cigarettes and roll-your-owns.  Let’s pause and get this in perspective. Globally, an upper limit of 8.5% of tobacco sold is estimated to be black market, but most of this occurs in nations with high corruption indexes like most of Africa and the former Soviet states. BAT is saying that Australia is in that league.

Contrast this with findings of the 2007 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, (amazingly, not compared or even referenced by PWC) which found that, while 8.7% of adult Australians had ever smoked unbranded, only 0.2% of the population (around 33,000 people) used it more than half the time.

• A core claim of the PWC report is that loose “chop-chop” tobacco constitutes 83% of the total volume of illegal tobacco sold (the rest being counterfeit or smuggled), and yet only 2% of smokers in this survey regularly bought chop-chop (see p1). The report fails to specify the average amounts purchased by smokers who purchased at varying levels of regularity, but at an estimated total of 2,119,000 kgs per year, this would have to require astronomical levels of consumption of illicit tobacco by these 70,000 or so smokers.
• The report is strewn with semi-literate writing (“Figure 7: Unbranded tobacco is predominately purchase loose in bags”) and the authors misspell the name of one of the largest tobacco manufacturers in the world, Philip Morris. The lack of transparency is staggering. The key table, table 7, states that the estimated number of unbranded tobacco users, point 4, is 13% based on “extrapolating 5 to 6”. No note 6 appears in the table, and Note 5 is calculated using the estimated quantity of tobacco multiplied by the estimated number of unbranded tobacco users (which was what was listed as point 4!).  No estimates are provided anywhere of the total number of smokers in the population, or the source for such an estimate.  If the estimated number of purchasers is calculated from the percentage of smokers who have reported purchasing the product, (presumably, purchasing it on any occasion in the last year, (13%)), then PWC must be assuming a total 3.9m smokers. But current estimates of the number of Australians (14 or 15 years and over) who smoke at least weekly range from 3.1m (NDSHS 2007) to 3.3m (ABS Nat Health Survey 2007).

• Something is fundamentally wrong with the estimates of the amounts and frequency of purchases. The 403 gms of unbranded tobacco purchased 11 times in a year represents around 6820 RYO cigarettes (based on an average of 0.6 gms of tobacco per cigarette), or an average of 19 cigarettes per day (403*11/.65=6820 divided by 365 days). While it is possible to believe that someone who exclusively or almost exclusively smoked unbranded tobacco smoked 19 illicit cigarettes every day last year, this is simply not plausible as an average for all the people who have ever purchased any quantity in the last year, i.e. including those who have purchased them on just a few occasions. According to the NDSHS (refer Figure 4.1), around 150,000 Australians exclusively use roll-your-own tobacco: the rest of the estimated 780,000 smokers who ever use RYO also smoke tailor-made cigarettes. And yet, the PWC report estimates that 507,000 Australian are purchasing well over the average number of cigarettes smoked daily as unbranded tobacco – more than five times the number of estimated regular, exclusive RYO users.

Now, with $624m going missing each year, we might assume that this news would have caused considerable interest in Canberra since a similar tale was told in a 2007 report, oddly cloaked  in the same nationalistic pleas to hold taxes down for the benefit of  Treasury (and no mention of what BAT might project in increased sales from lower tax) .

So the obvious question to ask is this. If every fourth smoker has bought hot tobacco  — mostly from suburban tobacconists and markets, with – get this — nearly 10% buying from supermarkets –  then why aren’t these places swarming with plain clothes federal police, daily busting what must be hundreds if not thousands of these tax-evading, bold-as-brass illegal suppliers?  Don’t think the customers are street savvy young people experienced in looking over their shoulders as their buy dope and speed. The report assures us they are mostly low income, older males, notoriously difficult for federal police to simulate in their investigations.

So why is finding and busting these places beyond the wit of the federal police? For the simple reason that it’s nearly all total nonsense.

The clues to this are not hard to find.  Significantly, nowhere in the report is there any data on how many people were interviewed for this “survey”, how they were recruited, what the refusal rate was, what questions were asked or what the characteristics of the sample were. Most crucially the report fails to state how it defines “users of unbranded tobacco” – anyone who has ever used unbranded tobacco, anyone who has used it in the past 12 months, or perhaps anyone who has used it in the past 12 months more than 50% of the time?  A Friday email to BAT’s head of spin asking some these basic questions remains unanswered.

Imagine a stranger phoning or coming to your door and asking whether you regularly purchased illegal tobacco.  “Sure, what would you like to know? I’m not in the least bit worried about what might follow from such disclosures.” But the reliability of the answers would be dodgy for a far more fundamental reason. Counterfeit or illegal brands are often  indistinguishable from the real thing. And it’s not that they might taste differently: it’s been known for decades that many smokers can’t even tell their own brands when the pack is blinded.

Asking smokers to tell you if the pack they have is legal or illegal is simply useless. The gold standard used in studies estimating use of illegal tobacco involves highly detailed checking of the pack by skilled counterfeiting specialists and analysis of the tobacco to compare it to local blends to look for often large differences. The study seems blissfully unaware of these basic problems.

Like the owners of the White Star Line expressing concern that the Titanic passengers might get splinters from the handrails, the report is full of feigned horror at the extra health risks like inhaling mould that illegal tobacco might contain: “These cigarettes labelled with fake branding pose health risks to consumers as production facilities are unregulated and do not have to adhere to the strict production standards which licensed manufacturers follow.”

Remember, these are the same strict production standards that allow cigarettes to walk out the factory door oozing with over 60 known carcinogens and which will kill half of long term users when used according to the manufacturers’ instructions.

Another hint of the quality of the information is found in when, without blinking, the report notes that 13% of illegal purchasers said they would increase their illegal purchases if laws went ahead (as they have) to require retailers to cover pack displays. Try and figure that one.

The amateurishness of this report is jaw-dropping. If a student was to hand in an  assignment of this standard, I would fail it badly. That BAT was prepared to actually release this nonsense speaks volumes about its public affairs quality control.

As far back as 1994, an executive search firm told the Financial Review “”I don’t think there’s any doubt that it’s harder to get enthusiasm for tobacco companies. There is a trend. If you have ten qualified candidates and you tell them it’s a tobacco company, five might say they don’t want the job.”  Sixteen years later it looks as if the odds may have lengthened considerably.

LINCOLN — A proposal to make it illegal for youngsters to use or possess tobacco in Nebraska created some strange bedfellows.

Both the American Cancer Society and Reynolds American Tobacco backed the bill introduced by State Sen. Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center.

The Judiciary Committee heard testimony Friday on Legislative Bill 886. The committee took no immediate action.

Under the bill, youngsters under age 18 could be charged with infractions for using or possessing cigarettes or other tobacco products.

The penalty for a first violation would be a $100 fine. A second violation within two years would be $200 and a third violation in that time period would be $300.

The matter would not become part of a youngster’s criminal record.

Stuthman said he agreed to introduce the bill out of concern about the effects of smoking on young people. He said it was brought to him by Reynolds.

Minors possessing tobacco already is illegal in 36 states, including all of Nebraska’s neighbors, Stuthman said.

Jim Moylan, a Reynolds lobbyist, said he doesn’t know whether the laws in other states laws have reduced underage smoking.

Nebraska law now makes it a misdemeanor for youths under age 18 to use or buy tobacco. The maximum penalty is a $100 fine.

Youngsters charged with using tobacco can get out of the charge by providing evidence against the people who sold or gave them the tobacco.

Mark Welsch of the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution took a neutral position on the proposal.

He said he wasn’t convinced the bill would reduce the number of minors who smoke and didn’t expect authorities would make enforcement a high priority.

“We don’t want kids to smoke, but we don’t want the focus to be on criminalizing children,” Welsch said.

He called instead for laws to penalize the owners of stores that sell tobacco to minors.
By Martha Stoddard, Omaha
February 6, 2010

For years, Mike Horelick and Nicolina Karlsson endured the cigarette smoke wafting into their tiny Santa Monica courtyard apartment from a neighbor’s patio, even though it aggravated Karlsson’s asthma.

But after the couple made several $100 trips to the emergency room because their infant daughter was gasping for air, they pleaded with the neighbor to stop smoking outdoors, to no avail. Now, contending that secondhand smoke poses a health hazard, they have joined other activists who are pushing the city to snuff out smoking on private balconies and patios in multifamily dwellings.

It’s an effort that puts Santa Monica in sync with a growing number of other California cities and counties that have hit smokers where they live. Yet, in the liberal-leaning beach community, the debate takes on added freight because of the political clout of Santa Monica’s tenants rights advocates, who contend that landlords would welcome an excuse to evict longtime tenants in rent-controlled units.

The fight might come down to whether such a sweeping smoking ban bumps up against the civil rights of renters.

Santa Monica has already outlawed lighting up in public spaces, including beaches and parks, outdoor dining areas, bus stops, ATM lines, farmers markets, the pier and the Third Street Promenade. Last year, over the objections of many rent-control advocates, the city adopted an ordinance banning tobacco smoke in indoor and outdoor common areas of apartment and condo complexes.

But a prohibition on smoking on private patios and balconies marks a line that local politicians seem reluctant to cross for fear of offending the influential Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights group in an election year.

Even without an election, said Councilman Kevin McKeown, the issue is especially potent in Santa Monica, where about 70% of residents are renters.

“Do we even have the legal right to disallow smoking within someone’s home?” McKeown said. “Can we legislate the breeze?”

Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights has been a political force for 30 years. In the late 1970s, an era of rampant development, many elderly and low- and moderate-income tenants lost their homes as property owners converted apartments to condos. Tenants and neighborhood groups joined forces to support a successful ballot measure to institute rent control and “just cause” evictions.

Further smoking restrictions, they say, would erode renters’ rights.

“You can’t just pull away rights,” said Patricia Hoffman, chairwoman of the rights group. “You can ban smoking in new buildings. You can ban smoking in leases with new tenants. But if somebody is an existing tenant and has essentially the right to smoke, and smoking is a legal behavior, then it’s pretty hard to take away a legal right from someone.”

Santa Monica’s website says the city “is a leader in protecting its residents and visitors from the harms of secondhand smoke.” The American Lung Assn. recently gave the city an A for smoke-free outdoor air but a D for smoke-free housing.

Beth Miller, a renter in a coastal complex, said she moved in with a friend because her next-door neighbor’s cigar smoke aggravated her asthma. Now that it’s winter and she can keep her doors and windows closed, she’s back in her rent-controlled unit.

“Once it warms up, the sun comes pouring in and I don’t have air-conditioning,” Miller said. “I don’t want to be forced out. If I move, the same thing could happen again.”

Marty Shapiro, her cigar-smoking neighbor, spoke out against further restrictions at a December Rent Control Board meeting at which one member advocated banning smoking in all multifamily apartments and private patios and balconies. “You’ve eliminated smoking in restaurant patios and my swimming pool area, and now you’re going after [the areas] in my apartment,” Shapiro said.

Councilwoman Gleam Davis said she hopes there’s a way to balance the issues. “We have to be very careful when talking about circumscribing what people can do in their own homes,” she said.

The movement to limit or ban smoking at multiple-unit residences has made the most headway in the Bay Area. In 2007, Oakland became the first California city to require landlords to designate units as smoking or nonsmoking, and landlords and condo sellers there must disclose the status of their units to prospective tenants or buyers. Belmont in Santa Clara County went further last year, barring tobacco smoke in apartments. Richmond, east of San Francisco, adopted a similar policy that will go into effect next year.

In Southern California, a Calabasas ordinance requires that by 2012 at least 80% of all apartment units be designated permanently as nonsmoking.

Some landlords are requiring that new tenants agree not to smoke. Bill Dawson, vice president of Sullivan-Dituri, a property management company, recently instituted that policy at the courtyard apartment building where Horelick and his family live.

Related Management in November launched a no-smoking program in a couple of its high-end properties in New York City and hopes to expand it to California.

“I do not believe smokers are a protected class,” said Jeff Brodsky, president of Related Management. “If secondhand smoke emanating from an apartment is compromising another apartment . . . the landlord has to take some steps to actively mitigate that.”

Karlsson, an art teacher, said she enjoys letting her 3-year-old daughter Meleja sit at an easel to paint on the narrow upstairs balcony of their rent-controlled apartment. But if their neighbor is smoking, they are driven back indoors. Karlsson and Horelick have sealed their windows and doors as well as they can, but Meleja must regularly take a steroid and use an inhaler to control her asthma.

“They protect children [from secondhand smoke] at schools, the beach and the promenade,” Karlsson said, “but not where they sleep.”

By Martha Groves
February 3, 2010, The Los Angeles Times

The EU has declared war against smokers! Brussels wants to eliminate cigarettes with a ‘smoking police’, ashtray bans and high-publicity legal processes against celebrities who enjoy a puff.

A dossier with recommendations for the 27 member states has been released by the EU. The objective – a “100 per cent smoke free environment”.

Health ministers proposed the paper and the EU parliament has approved it.

Member countries now have three years to bring the recommendations into their own legal systems, and in Germany it is set to spark a new debate over the controversial smoking ban.

The new 31-page document makes recommendations for drastic measures to ban smoking in all workplaces, public buildings and facilities:

• Fines: Anyone who breaks the ban will receive a fine. The penalties are intended to be high enough to act as a deterrent. Companies will be threatened with higher fines than individuals and if necessary may even be threatened with the temporary withdrawal of their business permit.

• ‘Smoking police’: The EU states are being asked to set up a system for enforcing the smoking ban, including a system of prosecution. The use of inspectors and enforcement officials is recommended. They will also carry out random spot checks.

• Ashtray ban: It will be the responsibility of all companies and public services to ensure that there are no ashtrays in the building.

• Shock trials: The EU states will be encouraged to carry out sensationalist prosecutions designed to shock the public.

Celebrities who smoke will also be targeted and exposed publicly as smoking offenders.

The document states that if individuals in the public eye have deliberately disregarded the law and this is publicly known, the authorities will demonstrate their commitment to and the seriousness of the legislation by reacting with rigorous and speedy measures, attracting the widest possible public attention.

With these measures, the EU is trying to attack and eliminate smoking as much as possible. The aim is for all enclosed workplaces and public areas to become smoke free, including those which are partly open or enclosed.

The smoking ban will also include all hallways, staircases, toilets, staffrooms, store rooms and lifts that are used at work.

In the future tobacco smoke should not be seen or smelled in the air – it will probably be illegal to light a cigarette!

The dossier even defines smoking as including the ownership or handling of a lit cigarette, regardless of whether or not the smoke is actively being inhaled.