When Bruce Hicks started selling cigarettes from behind the bar at Murray Street Darts last year, it had nothing to do with diversifying revenue streams and everything to do with getting the cops off his back.

A fierce opponent to the statewide smoking ban from its impetus in 2006, Hicks racked up a series of tickets and legal costs as he blatantly and publicly defied the law, which prohibits smoking in all public indoor places. In September, a judge ruled housing CJ’s Tobacco Shop within Murray Street Darts, 609 N. Murray Blvd., exempted the business from the ban.

Hicks says he won.

“We did find the loophole. CSPD is not going to enforce the smoking ban at Murray Street Darts,” Hicks said.

Finding such a loophole was a fervent quest by many bar owners across the state when the law passed in spring 2006. Many claimed the ban would put them out of business.

Hicks claimed he lost a large percentage of his business in the six months he complied with the law, but then said, “enough is enough,” and began his crusade against the ban.

The downturn in the economy too closely followed the law’s passing to measure the effect of the smoking ban on the health of businesses, said Luke Travins, owner of the Ritz on Tejon Street.

“I really can’t attribute any of our sales trends to tobacco law,” Travins said.

Since the law took effect in July 2006, Colorado Springs police have issued 88 citations for smoking ban violations to businesses and individuals. Bars violating the law face a first-time fine of $200, with penalties rising for subsequent infractions.

“I think for a city of this size, those numbers are consistent with what we were expecting,” said Lt. David Whitlock, police spokesman. “We don’t get a lot of complaints about this. Our experience was, initially there was some push back. As with all of these laws, folks settle in and get back to business.”

Hicks estimates the city spent around $100,000 prosecuting his smoking ban violations. Between a donation jar at his bar and charging $1 to rent an ashtray, Hicks raised $16,000 to cover his legal fees.

With Hicks’ “win,” there are now two bars in Colorado Springs where you can legally smoke and drink indoors. The other, 15C, which advertises itself as a “Martini & Cigar Bar,” houses more than two dozen humidors and collects more than 5 percent of its annual sales from tobacco, making it a “cigar bar” as defined by the smoking ban.

On the whole, the ban isn’t an issue for most businesses, with even some of the most vocal opponents falling into compliance. V Bar on Kiowa Street, openly defiant in the beginning, backed down six weeks after the law took effect.

Other bars, like Oscars on Tejon Street, built covered patios or installed large awnings to accommodate smokers. Oscars’ patio is heated and ventilated by fans and, in the summer, the plastic windows are left open.

“People love the fact that they can stand out there. They don’t have to stand on the corner and freeze,” said Brian Bohannon, Oscars manager.

CARLYN RAY MITCHELL, THE GAZETTE
March 08, 2010

A tobacco ban ordinance is expected to top agendas of Brandon aldermen at their April 5 meeting.

If the smoke-free ordinance gets the nod, Brandon will be the first Rankin County city and 33rd in Mississippi to bar smoking in public places.

“It’s a bad habit,” Ward 5 Alderwoman Yvonne Bianchi said. “If our ordinance helps anyone, it’s worth it.”

The health benefits of smoke-free areas has propelled this legislation, Mayor Tim Coulter said.

“Basically, we’re planning to ban all smoking in retail, restaurant and grocery businesses,” Coulter said. “Smoking areas may be set aside for the employees if they’re at least 20 feet from the building. Also, these areas must be in the rear of the building away from the front entrances where customers and patrons pass.”

Coulter said many citizens have come forward requesting a ban of smoking in public places. Aldermen plan to discuss the ordinance in this week’s work session, Coulter said. It likely will be on the April 5 agenda.

Tawni Lovorn, of Mississippi Tobacco Free Coalition of Rankin, Scott and Simpson counties, said her group has done presentations to a handful of municipalities in those three counties.

“This is a great example of city leadership taking on a controversial issue in order to protect the health of the citizens and visitors of Brandon,” Lovorn said.

“Brandon would be the first of all the cities this coalition serves to go smoke-free, and we feel that it will help other cities do so, as well.”

Such an ordinance prevents numerous health risks, Lovorn said.

“Tobacco use remains the single-largest preventable cause of disease and premature death in the United States,” she said. “Each year in Mississippi, smoking accounts for an estimated 5,250 premature deaths, including 550 deaths among nonsmokers as a result of second-hand smoke. Sixty-nine thousand Mississippi kids now under 18 will ultimately die prematurely from smoking, according to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.”

Rankin County approved a measure last year barring smoking and tobacco use in county buildings and county-owned vehicles.

Although it raised some eyebrows at first, Board of Supervisors President Greg Wilcox said the measure was important.

“Nonsmokers don’t have a say-so unless we make some rules and regulations,” Wilcox said. “We make sure people don’t get second-hand smoke in public facilities.”

Two cities in neighboring Madison County – Ridgeland and Flora – have adopted smoking bans, and Madison has a voluntary ban since its restaurants opted to go smoke-free on their own. Jackson and Clinton also have smoke-free ordinances.

“I really believe that the smoking ban in Ridgeland will have a very positive effect on our citizens,” Ridgeland Mayor Gene McGee said.

BOSTON, – General Electric Co (GE.N) is known for exporting American products like washing machines and jet engines, and the biggest U.S. conglomerate is getting ready to ship out another American trend — the outdoor smoking ban.

The world’s largest maker of jet engines this week told employees that it plans to ban smoking on all GE property — both indoors and out — worldwide starting in March 2011.

The Fairfield, Connecticut-based company already prohibits indoor smoking at about 80 percent of its 2,000 facilities globally. The new policy aims to extend that ban to apply to all GE property, meaning an assembly-line worker could not have a cigarette while walking from the factory gate to the door.

“We’ve made a commitment to making our employees healthier and it’s a little bit of walking the talk,” said GE spokeswoman Sue Bishop. “It’s due to the overwhelming evidence of the ill-effects of smoking.”

Smoking — a leading cause of cancer — has become increasingly unpopular in the United States in recent decades, with many businesses and municipalities banning smoking indoors. Some U.S. universities, hospitals and parks have banned smoking outdoors.

Last year the U.S., which is wrestling with ways to control the rising cost of health care, more than doubled the national tax on cigarettes to $1 per pack. That pressured the U.S. sales of Altria Group Inc (MO.N), which makes Marlboro cigarettes, and Reynolds American Inc (RAI.N), which makes Camel.

The American Cancer Society estimates that smoking costs the U.S. economy $196 billion a year in medical costs and productivity losses due to smoking-related deaths.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s inability to quit smoking made headlines in the United States after his first official physical exam last week.

SMOKING RATES HIGHER ABROAD

While smoking has been on the decline in the United States for half a century, about half of GE’s 304,000 employees work outside its home country, where smoking rates can be higher.

Almost one in five Americans — 19.8 percent of the population — smokes, according to data from the World Health Organization.

But smoking is far more common in some emerging markets that GE regards as key to its future growth. For instance, in China, about 31.4 percent of the population — and 57.4 percent of men — smoke; in India 57 percent of men and 10.8 percent of women smoke.

Smoking is also more common in Western Europe, with 23.2 percent of Germans and 25 percent of the French smoking.

GE is not alone in banning smoking at its outdoor facilities in the United States. Drugmaker Abbott Laboratories Inc (ABT.N) prohibits employees and visitors from lighting up at any of its campuses in the United States and Puerto Rico.

Some U.S. companies have taken anti-tobacco measures even further. In 2005, lawn care products maker Scott’s Miracle-Gro Co (SMG.N) said it would no longer hire people in the United States who smoked and banned its employees from smoking on or off the job in the U.S. states where it can do so legally.

The company today estimates that less than 10 percent of its 8,000 employees use tobacco products, down from more than 25 percent before the policy, said Jim King, a senior vice president at the Marysville, Ohio-based company.

The Cleveland Clinic, a major Midwestern hospital, in 2007 said it would no longer hire smokers.

GE’s ban — which also applies to chewing tobacco and other so-called smokeless products — will be subject to local laws and labor agreements, and does not apply to employees’ behavior off GE property, Bishop said.

To give its salaried U.S. employees a further incentive to quit smoking, GE this year adopted a two-tier insurance program that requires smokers to pay an additional $625 per year in insurance premiums.
Policy takes effect March 1, 2011
By Scott Malone

Indianapolis – A statewide smoking ban is on the table again at the Indiana Statehouse.

The House of Representatives voted 54-44 Thursday to impose a statewide smoking ban with just two exceptions: casinos and pari-mutuel horse racing venues or racinos.

“This is something we should have done three years ago, ladies and gentlemen. I don’t think we can wait another year as has been quoted by the president Pro Tem of the Indiana Senate. That is why I want to send it back over there,” said Rep. Charlie Brown (D-Gary).

Brown says secondhand smoke is not good for Indiana. It’s certainly not good for Rep. John Bartlett, who was diagnosed with cancer in 2002.

“It’s a bad feeling. They have affairs for legislators and if I go in and they are smoking, I don’t stay. I don’t want cancer again and I hope no one in this House ever has to hear the doctor say you have cancer,” he said.

Some lawmakers could not support the measure.

“I cannot in good conscience vote for a bill that would prohibit the men and women who died on foreign soil would prevent them from smoking in their VFW Hall if they want it to be that way so I am going to vote no,” said Rep. Jerry Torr (R-Carmel).

“I do believe that we are violating the right of people to invest in a business and determine how they want to run that business if we allow a ban on smoking,” said Rep. Phil Hinkle (R-Indianapolis).

The smoking ban passed by ten votes so the Senate will have the chance to concur with the changes or differ and send it to conference committee to iron out the differences between the bills that passed out of the House and the Senate.

Febrar 26, 2010
By Kevin Rader, Eyewitness News

TOPEKA | In a landmark move, the Kansas House passed a statewide public smoking ban Thursday and sent it to Gov. Mark Parkinson.

If Parkinson signs the legislation as expected, Kansas will join nearly 40 states that have some statewide restrictions on where smokers can light up.

The ban would go into effect July 1.

Today’s vote was 68-54. Supporters said they were tired of waiting as ban proposals languished for years on the legislative agenda.

“While we continue to debate and debate… people are dying,” said Rep. Barbara Bollier, a Mission Hills Republican and a physician. “People are becoming ill, and they are asking you to help them.”

In the end, supporters of the ban used a procedural move to force a vote on the legislation on House floor Thursday. Since the Senate has already passed the measure it now goes straight to Parkinson, who has said he supports a ban.

The proposed ban would prohibit smoking in bars, restaurants, workplaces, 80 percent of hotel rooms and taxi cabs. Casino floors, tobacco shops, private clubs and designated smoking rooms in hotels would be exempt.

The ban will not replace stricter local smoking bans now in place. Some 39 Kansas cities and counties – including most in the metro area – already ban smoking to some degree.

For years health advocates pushed bills to outlaw smoking in bars, restaurants and workplaces only to see them snuffed out or tabled by skeptical lawmakers.

Last year the Senate endorsed the legislation but the House never voted on the measure. Lawmakers who pushed for a statewide ban for years told their colleagues that Thursday’s vote would be one they could tell their grandchildren about.

“If you care about improving the health of Kansans, this is the most important vote you can make this year, perhaps in your entire legislative career,” said Rep. Jill Quigley, a Lenexa Republican.

Earlier this year, critics of a ban had proposed legislation earlier this year that would allow restaurants and bars to opt out by paying a fee. But supporters of a stronger ban objected to that bill, saying it was disingenous.

Critics of a statewide ban said smoking bans should be left to local governments. They called it hypocritical for the state to ban smoking in private businesses but not state-run casinos.

“You’re going to be shutting down bars and restaurants that have been in business for decades,” said Rep. Scott Schwab, an Olathe Republican. “At what point has government gone too far?”
By David Klepper on February 25, 2010

The complete ban on smoking in public areas, due to come into force on June 1 2010, could be postponed until the start of 2011, Finance Minister Simeon Dyankov told private national broadcaster Darik radio on February 22 2010.

The decision, announced by MPs from the ruling GERB party, who came forward with amendments to the public health bill just days earlier, was meant to help Bulgaria’s restaurant and hotel business recover from the economic crisis, Dyankov said.

“I hope that this delay in enforcing a complete ban on smoking in public places will be just temporary because the trend, not just in Europe but in other places, is for banning smoking in public areas,” said Dyankov who has always expressed hostility towards smoking.

He said that postponing the ban was not a step backwards for the ruling majority in Parliament. “If the situation was normal and the economy was doing well, then we might have not taken this decision. Personally, I think that MPs have taken the right decision for the moment,” he said.

Dyankov said that Bulgaria could be out of the crisis by the end of 2010.

The full public smoking ban was approved by the previous government in May 2009. It is supposed to ban smoking everywhere in Bulgaria, incorporating all restaurants, pubs, clubs, cafes and bars.

On February 18 2010, however, GERB MPs said they were ready with amendments aimed at qualifying the full ban on smoking because it could undermine Bulgaria’s tourism and restaurant industry.

The news triggered negative reactions from NGOs and civil organisations but was supported by Prime Minister Boiko Borissov.

The amendments will be more flexible to enable restaurant and bar owners to comply with the ban.

The amendments stipulate that owners of bars and restaurants with an area of up to 100 sq m would be able to determine for themselves whether their premises should be non-smoking areas or not. Owners of facilities with an area of more than 100 sq m, however, will have to provide sections for non-smokers that have no direct link to the smokers’ areas.

Ohio taxpayers have paid more than $2 million to rid bars, restaurants and workplaces of tobacco smoke since the statewide smoking ban took effect in 2007, a sum that opponents say could be better used elsewhere.

The state has spent $3.2 million so far to identify businesses that are violating the smoking ban, to look for infractions and to process them through the court system, according to information released by the Ohio Department of Health to state Sen. Bill Seitz, a critic of the smoking ban.

Health authorities have issued $1.2 million in fines and collected about $400,000, the health department said.

Critics of the smoking ban, which was approved by 58 percent of Ohio voters in 2006, point to the data as evidence that taxpayers are putting a lot of money toward patchy enforcement of the smoking law while violators shirk their fines.

“Even if they collected every single dime of every fine they’ve issued, they’ve still spent more than $2 million,” said Pam Parker, owner of a Grove City saloon and a regional director of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association.

Backers of the smoking ban take the opposite view. They say $2 million over nearly three years is a modest sum to reduce smoking rates in Ohio and protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke. Since the ban took effect, Ohio’s adult smoking rate dipped from 22.5 percent to 20.2 percent, according to the Ohio Department of Health, although the trend might not be attributable to the no-smoking law alone.

The state Health Department says smoking-related health costs in Ohio come to about $4.37 billion a year, including $1.4 billion to Medicaid, the federal-state health-care program for the poor and disabled.

“I don’t think this has been an unreasonable cost for enforcement,” said Mandy Burkett, chief of the indoor environment section at the Ohio Department of Health. “I think the costs will be recouped by savings in other areas, particularly health-care costs.”

Seitz, a Cincinnati Republican and a smoker himself, said every dollar spent to look for smokers or ashtrays is money that could be used to pay for education, health care or other good causes.

“It’s a matter of priorities,” Seitz said. “We are in unprecedented times.”

He said bars should be able to purchase “smoking licenses” – similar to a liquor permit and costing a few thousand dollars – that would exempt the businesses from the ban. Money from the licenses then could be used to enforce the smoking law at businesses that aren’t exempt.

Seitz’s idea may face the same fate as other proposals to weaken the statewide smoking ban. Attempts to exempt certain businesses, such as fraternal organizations and family-owned bars, have fizzled in the legislature. Public-health advocates regularly trot out polls showing strong public support for the ban.

Seitz’s “smoking license” idea isn’t the only route by which certain businesses might be able to exempt themselves from the ban. Zeno’s, a Columbus bar that the state sued in August for repeatedly violating the ban, is challenging the constitutionality of applying the law to bars that are restricted to people 21 years or older.

“It might be perfectly constitutional to bar smoking in certain buildings or sports stadiums or family restaurants, but here you have a business that’s only 21 and up and that has a bar that’s big enough where someone can sit on one side of the bar and not bother someone on the other side of the bar,” said Maurice Thompson, the attorney for Zeno’s.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David Cain has not ruled on the case.

In Franklin County, the number of investigations into suspected violations has ebbed since authorities began enforcing the statewide ban in May 2007. (Many Franklin County jurisdictions, including Columbus, had local no-smoking laws that predated the statewide ban.)

The Franklin County Board of Health investigated 273 cases in 2007, 200 in 2008 and 163 in 2009, according to records. More than half of the cases were dismissed each year.

The health departments in Franklin and Delaware counties, which receive 90 percent of fine revenue for cases they investigate plus a flat rate from the state Health Department, say the ban hasn’t been a big financial burden.

“We haven’t had to add staff to get the investigations done,” said Stephanie DeGenaro, the head tobacco enforcer for the Delaware General Health District.
By James Nash
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Winnipeg soccer fields may soon be added to the growing list of areas where, even in the great outdoors, smokers are forbidden to light up.

The Winnipeg Youth Soccer Association wants to ban smoking within 50 metres of any youth game following complaints from referees and parents that the air is being fouled by sideline smokers.

“There were a couple of incidents last year where a referee had to stop a game because somebody had lit up … right on the sideline and it was wafting onto the field,” association president Alastair Gillespie said Monday. “We’re doing this for the protection of the kids.”

‘This is just insanity. People have gone completely insane.’—Arminda Mota, My Choice president

The group is consulting a lawyer and talking with city hall to ensure it has the legal authority to ban smoking on municipal fields during its games, and hopes to implement the rule this spring.

Smokers may be getting used to this kind of treatment. It is growing across the country.

Toronto started banning smoking near all playgrounds and wading pools last year. The Nova Scotia community of Truro bans outdoor smoking along a popular downtown shopping strip. The Edmonton Folk Music Festival, held outside in the city each summer, has a no-smoking area that covers half of the seating area in front of its outdoor main stage.
Weeded out

It’s getting virtually impossible to find a place to light up, according to one smoker’s rights group.

“This is just insanity. People have gone completely insane,” said Arminda Mota, president of My Choice. My Choice was set up several years ago with funding from tobacco manufacturers, although Mota says the group no longer receives money from the industry.

“What (anti-smoking advocates) want is to criminalize smokers, and they want children not to see any smokers anywhere.”

Idling cars and trucks are more of a health threat in the outdoors than second-hand smoke, Mota argued.

But anti-smoking advocates disagree. They point to a 2005 University of Maryland study that found levels of second-hand smoke outdoors did not dissipate to low levels until travelling seven metres or more and that distance increased if there were multiple smokers standing together.

Gillespie is hopeful most soccer moms and dads will support the smoking ban.

“It’s not our desire to offend people or to be looking for trouble,” he said. “I hope people will accept this and if they wish to smoke, they will smoke away from the (field).”

But smokers are getting fed up with the growing list of areas where they can’t light up, Mota said.

“Are we going to live in a world where everybody is bullied because of their way of life?,” she said.

“What they want is to make it virtually impossible to smoke absolutely anywhere, so basically you’re criminalizing law-abiding citizens.”

February 22, 2010
The Canadian Press

NEW DELHI: India is just a step away from banning foreign investment in tobacco, shattering the plans of Japan Tobacco, BAT and the Altria Group, but leaving the field wide open for ITC to increase its dominance in the growing cigarette market. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, who was the last hurdle for the proposal from the health ministry, is now supporting the controversial ban, said a senior ministry official who is aware of the development. The finance ministry communicated its support to the ban through a communication dated February 3, 2010.

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) will now approach the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, or CCEA, the final authority, for the formal approval to ban foreign investments in tobacco. “We were awaiting finance ministry’s views on this matter,” said KK Modi, president and MD of the second-largest tobacco company, Godfrey Philips India, where Altria Group owns a 25% stake and the Indian promoters 46%. “Banning it permanently will give a jolt to the foreign players.”

After an acrimonious relationship spanning several years, the two have buried the hatchet and the local joint venture now has the right to manufacture the iconic Marlboro in India. Before that, it was sold through a separate company.

The move to ban foreign investments in tobacco has been controversial since the proposal came soon after Japan Tobacco announced its intention to raise its stake in the local unit to 74% from 50%. Also, British American Tobacco, the single largest shareholder in ITC, has seen its desire to take a controlling stake in the Indian unit thwarted consistently without any adequate reasoning. BAT holds about 32% in ITC, and the government-controlled LIC and Unit Trust of India’s government administrator are the other big shareholders.

The proposed ban may shut the door permanently on Japan Tobacco’s proposal to invest $100 million into its Indian subsidiary. Its proposal has been pending with the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) for about two years at least since the health ministry had proposed a ban on FDI in this sector.

The tobacco giant, owned by the Japanese government, had said that the proposal complies with the FDI policy since the new investment will not lead to capacity addition. India’s largest cigarette manufacturer, ITC, which has about three-fourths of market share in cigarettes and is the potential beneficiary from the ban, said it wouldn’t comment on the matter.

Nicotine addicts who have been dreaming of shifting to Camel or Salem from ITC’s Wills or Gold Flake, may have to wait for eternity if the CCEA puts its stamp of approval on the plan. But the lobbying by global firms may not end as yet given that it may be billions of dollars of revenue lost for multinational companies.

The current policy lacks clarity on whether FDI is allowed in the sector, though the government does not allow creation of fresh cigarette manufacture capacity. The health ministry has been batting for a complete ban on foreign investment and had objected to JTL’s proposal to allow even existing foreign investors to raise investment in subsidiaries.

The issue was then taken up by an inter-ministerial group (IMG) having representation from departments concerned, including health, DIPP, commerce, the Planning Commission and finance. The DIPP floated a formal Cabinet note after the IMG decided to support the ban on FDI.

Smoking will be banned in certain public areas in Hangzhou, such as hospitals, supermarkets, bars and on buses, from March 1. People will be entitled to stop others smoking or lighting cigarettes in public places and offenders will be liable to a fine of 50 yuan (US$7.32).

The ban will operate as a result of the recently approved “The Bylaw on Smoking Control in Public Areas of Hangzhou” passed by the Standing Committee of Hangzhou Municipal People’s Congress and Standing Committee of Zhejiang Provincial People’s Congress.

The bylaw forbids not only smoking but also holding a burning cigarette, cigar or pipe.

Hangzhou’s smokers number around 2.5 million people, accounting for about 35 percent of the permanent resident population, according to Hangzhou Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

The center says the trend of young people smoking is growing and 39.7 percent of adolescents suffer from passive smoking.

The strict law to forbid smoking in public areas appears to have been favorably received.

“I always hate people smoking in public places like shopping malls and supermarkets,” says 54-year-old Hangzhou resident Zhao Songying who never smokes.

The law is also supported by occasional smoker Bob Gong, an engineer working in a tobacco company. “Though it may interfere with tobacco sales, I personally think it’s understandable, and it’s good for the smokers and people around them.”

The bylaw is a revision of another smoking-ban law carried out by the city in 1995. The old law mainly banned outdoor tobacco or cigarette advertising, selling of tobacco or cigarettes on World No Tobacco Day (May 13) and smoking in major public areas of the city.

The first two provisions remain well implemented but the last was not so successful. Though people cannot smoke at train stations, airports and hospitals except in designated areas, many forget they cannot smoke in pubs, restaurants or KTVs.

The law’s poor enforcement led to inefficient supervision, and weak social awareness brought about public indifference.

Now, the Hangzhou Health Bureau has modified some provisions and been more specific on control.

Since the bureau doesn’t have enough inspectors to monitor every smoker, the bureau will empower different organizations to enforce the bylaw.

For example, transportation management will enforce the law at bus stations.

The bureau will also encourage people to stop others smoking.

Anyone who sees someone smoking in a public place can ask them to put it out. If the smoker refuses and keeps smoking, people can report them to the bureau and the smoker will be fined.

To ensure the law can be enforced from next month, the government plans to recruit 10,000 volunteers to publicize it and assist with enforcement.

Also, all social groups, public institutions and agencies are required to instruct their own personnel to control smoking.

Public areas where smoking will be banned include: medical institutions; cinemas, theaters and museums; kindergartens and schools; historical and cultural sites open to the public; taxis, buses and all public transport; elevators and underpasses; stadiums; conference rooms; parks and squares when meetings are being held.

The bylaw also specifies that designated indoor smoking areas need to be clearly defined. Otherwise the whole place will be deemed as a non-smoking area.

These include in supermarkets, shopping malls, amusement parlors and Internet cafes, social organizations, and offices, halls, auditoriums and canteens of public agencies and institutions.

Any business with a non-conforming smoking area or room will be warned or liable for a fine from 500 yuan to 2,000 yuan.

Smoking was prohibited in almost all indoor places such as bars and restaurants or eateries for to protect employees and customers from secondhand smoke exposure. However most of cafes, bars and restaurants across Macedonia shut their doors to customers because this indoor legislation. So, bar employees protested 24 hours against a new smoking ban.

Even on the capital’s main boring avenue Makedonija, people very hard found an early morning coffee as establishments refused to open up in a show of anger about the ban introduced on January 1.

This recent legislation is considered one of the rugged in Europe with other smoking banned in all public places, including offices and hospitals, and even outside terraces serving food or drinks.

It has been hard to be approved in the former Yugoslav republic where it is considered to have many smokers, half of the two million citizens.

“This is nightmare. The law is too strict so it has become a very big pain for smokers,” 50-year-old lawyer Bojan Ivanov told.
Even though, he declared that he did see some benefits: “Now I smoke only one cigarette per hour as it is cold outside. Before, it was five per hour.”

But the owners of cafes, bars and restaurants said that their income has decreased by between 40 and 70 percent since January 1 and they want state officials to review this law which they fear could lead them to lose jobs.
Macedonia already has approximately 35 percent unemployment rate with the providing industry affording around 2.3 percent of jobs.
“Our protestation fell to its knees in the past 20 days and we will likely not be able to survive the first month,” Tourism Chamber of Macedonia spokesman Darko Danilov told AFP.

“Soon we will see the closing of bars and restaurants and mass shooting of employees,” Danilov added.
Politicians have also suggested amendments to the law to empower smoking outside eateries, for example on balconies or in gardens, but this has yet to be discussed.

So, restaurants and bars owners, from Macedonia, decided to close their environments because they faced fines of between 2,500 and 4,500 euros (3,522 and 6,340 dollars) because they violated the regulations.

Athens – More than six months after Greece introduced a ban on smoking in public places, officials were conceding that the third attempt to stamp out the habit is failing, it was reported Friday. Greece, one of the last bastions of smoking in the European Union, introduced a ban on smoking in public places on July 1.

According to a report in the Greek daily Kathimerini, despite awareness campaigns that were initially well received by the public in the countdown to the ban, the necessary reforms have not been carried out to ensure that the restrictions are enforced.

As a result, smoking continues in most bars and cafes, public offices and hospitals, according to Panayiotis Behrakis, the head of the steering committee set up to oversee the implementation of the restrictions.

“The whole country is smoking,” Behrakis was quoted as saying to Kathimerini.

Under the new law, anyone caught lighting up will now be subject to a 1,000 euros (1,400 dollars) fine, whilst establishments that do not comply with the new regulations risk losing licences.

Britain, Ireland, France, Germany and other EU states have already introduced public smoking bans.

But, considering Greece’s patchy track record for implementing new laws, it appears that the new law, which allows for some loopholes and is largely unpopular has proved to be unsuccessful.

One of the problems seems to be that bar and cafe owners have submitted incomplete applications for revised operating licenses.

Small cafes and restaurants with premises measuring less than 70 square metres have had to choose between becoming tobacco-free or admitting only patrons who smoke.

In addition, companies with more than 50 employees will be able to set up dedicated smoking areas on their premises.

Similar laws introduced in 2002 and 2003 went largely unheeded in a country where nearly 45 per cent of adults smoke and where puffing on cigarettes in offices and cafes is seen as a traditional pastime.

Each year, 20,000 people in the nation of 11 million die from tobacco-related illnesses, according to European Commission figures that place Greece ahead of Bulgaria at 39 per cent and Latvia, 37 per cent of the share of adult smokers.

A 2007 survey found the number of smokers in Greece had risen 10 per cent in a decade while other developed nations were kicking the habit.

JEFFERSON CITY — Smoking would be banned in many public places statewide under legislation proposed Monday by two St. Louis-area legislators.

The bill, which has not yet been assigned to a committee, would ban smoking in restaurants, bars, shopping malls and gambling facilities, among other public places.

“We’re on three sides surrounded by no smoking states,” said Rep. Walt Bivins, R-St. Louis, the bill’s primary sponsor. “I just think it’s time we pass this for the health of all of us.”

Bivins and Rep. Jill Schupp, D-Creve Coeur, hammered out the specifics of the legislation with support from the American Lung Association and American Cancer Society, who have, in the past, opposed bans at the city and county level because they were too lax for the groups’ liking.

Both are optimistic that the bill has a strong chance of moving through the legislative process. However, critics, including Senate leadership, say the proposal is unlikely to pick up much steam.

“I’m still not convinced this is the year that happens,” said Senate President Pro Tem Charlie Shields, who said restaurant owners in the state, already facing challenges, would likely oppose the bill because of an expected hit to their business.

Last year, Sen. Joan Bray, D-St. Louis, sponsored a smoking ban bill, but it received little support from other lawmakers and was never heard in committee.

The current version comes at a time when key parts of the state have already approved some form of clean-air legislation, potentially making a statewide ban more politically palatable.

Three of Missouri’s largest cities — Kansas City, Springfield and Columbia — already have some form of indoor smoking ban. Last November, St. Louis County voters approved an anti-smoking measure that will trigger a ban in the city of St. Louis as well.

“Those are all population centers in our state,” said St. Louis County Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, who led the county push for a smoking ban. “If one connects the dots, you can see that this is certainly an important issue to many, many people in this state.”

Both the St. Louis and St. Louis County bans take effect next year.

The state measure would contain fewer exemptions, which helped it garner the support of groups such as the American Cancer Society, which did not endorse the county and city bans.
By Juana Summers
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
02/02/2010

LONDON – The UK government launched plans on Monday to halve the number of smokers by the end of the decade and said it would consider removing branding from cigarette packets and banning cigarette vending machines.

At the moment, 21 percent of the population smoke and ministers want to reduce that figure to 10 percent by 2020, with a particular focus on young people.

“We’ve come so far and now we’ll go even further — to push forward and save even more lives,” said Health Secretary Andy Burnham.

“One day, in the not too distant future, we’ll look back and find it hard to remember why anyone ever smoked in the first place.”

The number of people lighting up in Britain has fallen by a quarter in the past decade as a result of various policies including a ban on advertising, putting grisly pictures on packets and raising the age of sale for tobacco to 18.

In 2007, the government joined several others throughout the world in introducing a ban on smoking in virtually all enclosed public places and workplaces.

But despite falling smoking rates, the number of deaths attributed to smoking is still 80,000 a year.

Now restrictions will be reviewed to see if they should be extended to include entrances to buildings so non-smokers do not have to run a gauntlet of smokers.

The government is looking at protecting children from second-hand smoke by promoting smoke-free homes and cars.

Ministers are also to consider the case for plain packaging, and banning the sale of tobacco from vending machines as part of the moves to deter young people.

“Now that we’ve banned advertising and will soon see an end to attractive displays in shops, the only remaining method of advertising tobacco is the packaging,” Burnham said.

“So we will carefully consider whether there is evidence for making tobacco companies use plain packets.”

MUNCIE — Local health advocates are pleased to see a watered down version of a bill banning smoking in public places statewide go up in a puff of smoke.

Three amendments added to House Bill 1131 diluted the proposed ban so much that sponsor Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, pulled it on Monday. Originally, the only exemption to the ban was casinos. Rep. Dennis Tyler, D-Muncie, offered an amendment that added an exemption for bars, fraternal organizations, private clubs and taverns.

“I applaud Rep. Charlie Brown’s decision because the bill was too weakened, too many amendments to make it an effective piece of legislation,” said Cecilia Williams, program coordinator for the Tobacco Free Coalition of Delaware County.

Williams and others, including Delaware County Health Department Administrator Bob Jones, want a comprehensive ban that prohibits smoking in all public places. Indiana is one of 12 states, known as the Dirty Dozen, without such legislation.

The reasoning is that employees, as well as customers, have the right to breathe smoke-free air.

“From a public health perspective we would encourage regulations that would ban smoking in the workplace and any place that the public does visit,” Jones said.

Red Dog Saloon owner and Indiana Licensed Beverage Association President Lewis Coulter doesn’t buy the argument that the ban protects his employees. Most of them, he said, are already smokers, and those who don’t want to work in a smoke-filled environment are free to work elsewhere.

Making bars and taverns smoke-free would be their death knell, said Coulter, who agrees with the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association that there should be exemptions for such establishments.

“People have the right to go in if they want to,” Coulter said. “I don’t like smoking. I wish everybody would quit, but that’s not my choice. I don’t think government has a right (to dictate). It’s my choice whether I have smoking or not.”

Tyler listened. According to campaign finance reports, Tyler received a combined $1,200 from the Beer Industry, Indiana Licensed Beverage Association and Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers, but says those donations didn’t sway his opinion.

“I just thought that was too much of an intrusion,” Tyler said of the original bill. “It’s just tough times and talking to those small business people all over the state of Indiana that type of hit would put a number of them out of employment.”

Tyler is hopeful Brown brings the bill back before the legislative session ends. If he does, Williams wants a strong bill, or her organization will push for stronger smoking bans at the local level.

“We’re here to protect all workers,” Williams said.

ELM SPRINGS, Ark. — Smoking with young children in the car can be dangerous to their health, and in Arkansas it’s also against the law.

The law was passed in 2008, one reason why some smokers 40/29 talked with had no idea it even exists.

Fayetteville resident R.L. Jackson said, “I’ve never heard of the law before.”

Jackson has been a smoker for a long time, and was raised in a smoking environment himself.

“I grew up with a father smoking and I had no problems,” Jackson said.

Still, he was happy to hear about the law that bans drivers from smoking if children under the age of 6, or those that weigh less than 60 pounds are in the car.

Sgt. Kurt Eichel from the Elm Springs Police Department said, “If the officer walks up to the vehicle and sees a child that meets those requirements and you’re smoking, that’s illegal.”

Eichel said it’s a fairly rare citation, though he did issue one just the other day.

“The ticket we wrote the other day was one of the first ones we’ve seen in quite a while,” Eichel said.

Though not everyone 40/29 talked with thought police should be cracking down on smokers that hard.

Smoker Joseph Rodriguez said, “I do think it’s kind of unfair if someone is ticketed. I think a warning would be in order.”

Joseph Rodriguez says police should give smokers like him a little leeway when it comes to the law, just because it is still so new and relatively unknown.

This law is a secondary offense, meaning you can only be cited for it if you are pulled over for something else, like running a red light or speeding.

Drivers caught breaking the law face a $25 fine.
January 24, 2010

A new report shows Iowa’s smoking ban has already led to a decrease in hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases.

According to the report from the University of Iowa and Iowa Department of Public Health, the largest drop was in coronary heart disease, which showed an average 24 percent reduction in hospital admissions since the Smokefree Air Act was implemented in 2008.

That represents 2,324 fewer Iowans with the condition — the single greatest cause of death in the United States — compared to the three preceding years.

“That’s a lot of dollars, too, if you think about it in that way,” said Christopher Squier, a lead author of the report.

The act prohibits smoking in nearly all public places in Iowa, including restaurants and bars.

Squier, a UI oral pathology professor, said the decreases are related to smoke exposure.

Even 30 minutes of exposure could trigger a condition in people who are vulnerable, he said, because of the effect of smoke on vessels that supply blood to the heart.

“As we increasingly have clean air, people don’t have this exposure,” Squier said.

He noted that the benefit appears to get larger over time, with a more than 40 percent decrease in coronary heart disease admissions in June 2009 compared to June 2008.

Decreases were also seen in admission rates for heart attacks, the leading cause of death worldwide. Those rates dropped by 8 percent, or 483 fewer Iowans with the condition, compared to the preceding three years.

Rates of stroke — the leading cause of adult disability in the U.S. and second cause of death worldwide — also decreased.

After the smoking ban, rates of stroke admissions at Iowa hospitals dropped by 5 percent, representing 347 fewer Iowans with the condition, compared to the previous three years.

Admission rates for kidney infections and pancreatitis, control conditions in the study, did not change after the smoking ban.

Squier said he was not surprised at the results, as studies elsewhere, such as Colorado, New York and Scotland, showed similar reductions.

For example, a report last year from the Institute of Medicine showed decreases of 6 to 47 percent in heart attacks after smoking bans were implemented, based on a large number of studies.

Squier said it will take longer to see the effects on cancer rates.

“In 20 years is when we’ll see the real payoff,” he said.

The report was presented Thursday by the American Cancer Society at a legislative breakfast in Des Moines.

Jan 15, 2010
By Cindy Hadish.

TOPEKA | Kansas’ governor has given a boost to an ongoing campaign for a statewide smoking ban, but supporters still have to overcome the opposition — and perhaps ingenuity — of business owners like Sharon Suwalski.

After Topeka banned smoking last year in bars and restaurants but not tobacco shops, Suwalski and her husband laid down blue tape to separate his tobacco counter from her bar inside their Hot Pockets billiard hall. She said Thursday that the tape also should allow customers inside the tobacco shop’s designated area to smoke under proposals before the Legislature.

Gov. Mark Parkinson lifted public health advocates’ hopes by declaring in his annual State of the State address that he wants a strong statewide ban on smoking in public places. Two such proposals passed the Senate last year; both await a House vote.

They face criticism from some business owners and state residents who see a ban as too much meddling in their lives. Suwalski watched Parkinson’s speech on television and remembered thinking, “He’s crazy.”

“There are places where people expect to be able to smoke,” she said. “If they can’t smoke in here, I’m not going to have any customers.”

Kansas legislators have seriously considered statewide rules on smoking for the past five years as local governments have enacted ordinances. Three counties and 36 cities have imposed limits on smoking in public places, and their restrictions apply to 55 percent of the state’s population.

Supporters of a statewide ban view it as a public health measure that will protect Kansas residents — particularly workers — from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. They were pleased with Parkinson’s endorsement, though he wasn’t specific about the details of a ban.

“He wants a bill that’s written from a public health perspective,” said Mary Jayne Hellebust, lobbyist for the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition.

Twenty-four states ban smoking in restaurants and bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Parkinson noted in his address that North Carolina joined the list this year.

“If North Carolina, the largest tobacco-producing state in the country, can enact a public smoking ban, surely we can do it in Kansas,” Parkinson said. “I don’t want to see a watered-down public smoking ban, one that’s written by the tobacco industry and full of loopholes that isn’t a real ban.”

Both bills before the Legislature would exempt tobacco shops from a ban, as the Topeka ordinance does. In Hot Pockets, the thin, blue line of tape runs over gray carpet and down the center of tables as it outlines a cozy, 10-foot-by-10-foot square for the tobacco shop. The bar is outside the line, but only a short toss of a peanut away.

Suwalski acknowledged she wouldn’t oppose a state law if it exempted both bars and tobacco shops. But Tom Jacob, owner of the Cigar Chateau in Wichita, said the state should leave such decisions to local governments, which can work out compromises with local businesses.

Some Kansas residents don’t want even local governments to impose restrictions.

“I am just really fed up with government kind of encroaching on everybody’s personal rights and their freedoms,” said Gail Trembley, a smoker and Topeka resident who’s leading a campaign to repeal that city’s ordinance.

But advocates of statewide restrictions argue that most Kansas want public places to be smoke-free and that workers in bars and restaurants have a right to clean air. They believe Parkinson’s support will help.

“He is obviously looking for a good bill,” Hellebust said. “That certainly would favor public health advocates.”

Smoking bills are SB 25 and HB 2221, as amended by the Senate.

On the Net: Kansas Legislature: http://www.kslegislature.org

West Hollywood, California (January 11, 2010) – Half a dozen LA County municipalities have banned smoking near their outdoor dining facilities, with a few banning it from publicly-owned property – sidewalks, medians etc. – across their city entire.

All did so citing public health concerns, but none did so based on scientific evidence that second hand smoke (SHS) near an outdoor area poses a health risk, because no such peer reviewed study existed.

The first scientific study on detecting outdoor second hand smoke levelsin exposed persons, published by University of Georgia Athens (UGA) researchers in November, 2009, found increased levels of SHS in their subjects, but not levels considered to be risky.

The Athens-Clarke, Georgia, County Commission sought to extend their 2004/5 indoor smoking bans to outdoor areas in late 2009.

By chance, UGA happens to contain a world class environmental health sciences department that works alongside the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) to study indoor smoke and other contaminants around the world.

Environmental health science professor Luke Naeher told WeHo News that he conducted the study (in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene November 2009) because of the indoor ban – he wondered if allowing it in outdoor areas simply moved the risks associated with SHS in employees outdoors.

“I do indoor air exposure assessment and health studies in parts of the developing world, looking at diesel and wood and other kinds of air pollutants,” so when Georgia banned smoking indoors and restaurants and clubs established outdoor areas for smokers, “I developed a study to look at levels of outdoor SHS.”

He said that his study intended to show, and did show, that “you can measure these particles contained in SHS such as carbon monoxide, and they correlate with the number of cigarettes smoked at any given time and did not correlate with traffic and background pollutants.”

Based on those findings, he partnered with the Centers Of Disease Control to conduct a deeper study that “shows, where you have these outdoor smoking settings, you can measure these cotinine levels, which is an indication of nicotine, in saliva.

“The levels are not earth-shattering, but they are measurable,” he said.

The study, conducted in the summer and fall of 2007 in outdoor standing and seating areas of bars and family restaurants in Athens, involved students spending six hours at a time during the busiest periods.

In all test results cotinine saliva levels rose – even in the control location on a college campus courtyard (13 percent). The bar patrons saw a rise in cotinine levels increase the most at 62.5 percent and the dining patrons levels went up 52 percent.

The highest median levels of cotinine found in the subjects was .296 ng/mLl.

The best science on the risk associated with SHS by James Repace, a Maryland scientist, determined that an average salivary cotinine level of 0.40 ng/mL – or 2.2 times (220 percent) higher than those found in Athens – corresponds to an increased lifetime mortality risk of 1/1000 for lung cancer and 1/100 for heart disease.

As the report reads, “The average salivary cotinine levels for all six study dates in our study did not reach this level, although the average post-exposure salivary cotinine level for the bar site participants in the summer was 0.296 ng/mL,” which is 75 percent of the risk levels reported by Repace and colleagues.

“Additional studies are needed to determine if workers repeatedly exposed to SHS at outdoor bars have sustained salivary cotinine levels in the range of 0.30 – 0.40 ng/mL, which would indicate an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease,” he writes in the study.

The study acknowledges other faults, including not doing “an accurate count of the total number of cigarettes lit during each sampling period,” and not measuring how the “concentration of components of SHS in an outdoor location is… influenced by meteorological factors, such as wind speed, temperature, and humidity.”

After hearing the science, Athens-Clarke officials said they have no plans to revive talk of an outdoor smoking ban.

A UGA student clocking exposure to second hand smoke. WeHo News.

According to the Athens Banner Herald, “the county commission and the state legislature both considered extending the ban to 25 feet outside doorways but abandoned the idea.

“County commissioners,” they wrote, “said they would either not support an outdoor ban or are waiting for more evidence before tackling the issue.

“UGA researchers did not go so far as to say outdoor cafes and patios are hazardous. They said they do not know the health effects of outdoor secondhand smoke yet.”

Luke Naeher told WeHo News that he would uncover answers to better address the question of risk in his Spring 2010 study.

“Is this of public health concern,” he asked, “do these levels pose a risk? We haven’t answered that yet.”

In the new study he said he will use NNAL (a metabolite of tobacco-processing associated nitrosamines) as a marker. “That [metabolite] is a known carcinogen, so it is an accurate measure of health risk. Having the data can help policymakers and public health officials determine appropriate measures,” he said.

Originally set to be implemented on the 1st of January this year, the smoking ban is still being debated in the halls of power here in Spain with opposition parties failing to agree and Madrid setting its own rules.

Spain’s Health Minister Trinidad Jiménez has stated that she wants a new tobacco ban prohibiting smoking in all public places throughout Spain to go into effect as soon as the ruling Socialist Party can gather cross party support for its ratification by Congress.

TheUnited Left (IU) and Catalan Nationalist (CiU) approve the across-the-board ban but the major opposition Popular Party has not officially said whether it will support it. However, Madrid regional health chief Juan José Güemes, a member of thePP, said Monday he didn’t believe that the ban would work in the capital. “You never get good results from banning something,” Güemes said. “Restrictions mean curtailing freedoms and you have to be very careful about limiting individual guarantees.”

Deputy leader of the Madrid region, Ignacio González, also of the PP, said that his government would defend smokers’ rights “I believe that when it comes to the tobacco issue, one has to maintain some degree of respect — of course, at the same time looking at the legality of the legislation, but also ensuring that there is freedom to choose.”

It was in 2005, that the government introduced a tobacco law that has been poorly enforced. Under the regulations, public places more than 100-square-meters had to have a separate area for smokers. But a year later, a survey showed that more than half of the businesses around the country didn’t stick to the ban.

Madrid is different and the Madrid regional government issued its own decree, giving more freedom to smokers, such as allowing them to light up at certain areas at work and eliminating the 100-square-meter rule in the capital.

While a number of recent studies suggest that smoking bans cut down on heart attacks, critics argue that the data they rely on have been skewed or misinterpreted.

“It’s never a true reflective sample,” says Bill Hannegan, director of Keep St. Louis Free, which fights to protect the freedom and property rights of St. Louisians. “They do studies looking at communities where heart attack rates fell when bans were imposed, but we always ask, ‘Why not do a national study? Why single out a community like Bowling Green, Kentucky?’ If you looked at every place, you would see that smoking bans don’t really have that effect.”

Hannegan cites a countervailing study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found that heart attack rates were just as likely to increase after the imposition of smoking bans.

“What this study shows is that smoking bans do not reduce heart attacks in communities,” Hannegan summarizes. “What it also shows is that anti-smoking groups or tobacco-control groups have been cherry-picking cities to try and prove that smoking bans cause heart attack rates to fall.”

Keep St. Louis Free has protected the freedom and property rights of St. Louis business owners against smoking bans and other governmental usurpations for the past four years.

“We made sure that lawmakers in St. Louis were aware of all the studies,” Hannegan emphasizes. “What happened with smoking is that tobacco companies no longer contest any of these claims or fight the anti-smoking groups, so the only people fighting are private citizens, and we don’t have the resources that Big Tobacco has.”

Smoking bans, Hannegan believes, violate the rights and personal freedoms of American citizens and businessmen.

“I do believe that the business owner has the right to have a legal product on his property, if he is willing and able to take measures to reduce whatever health concerns there are to the greatest extent possible,” he affirms. “Business owners are willing to put in fans and ventilation and filtration and are acting in good faith, but public officials are not responding to this.”

Hannegan worries that the public acceptance of smoking bans could lead to other restrictions on our freedoms.

“If this was just about smoking, it wouldn’t be as great a concern, but what really concerns me is when the ends start to justify the means,” he explains. “Particularly when a group can be scapegoated using a manipulated science. The same thing being used against smokers can be used against other people later on and that should be of concern.”

HUNTINGTON, IND. – Another county in northeast Indiana has adopted a public smoking and tobacco ban. It took effect January 1st primarily for four buildings in Huntington County.

It will directly impact smokers when they visit some agencies in Huntington County.

“We passed an ordinance to ban smoking in any county owned buildings or county owned vehicles,” said Huntington County Commissioner Kathy Branham.

That was passed during the early summer of 2009 and applies to buildings operated by the County, primarily including the Huntington County Courthouse, The Courthouse Annex, the Huntington County Sheriff’s Department and Jail , and the Huntington County Highway Department.

The tobacco ban doesn’t just apply to inside the actual buildings in the County, but also the outside areas, like the steps and even the sidewalks. Several signs – both permanent and temporary – are posted all around to let everyone know the new rules.

“Prior to this we had a ban on smoking inside of the courthouse, but we had a real problem with people having to walk through it and then some of the offices in the summertime if the windows were open they were having a lot of smoke come into their rooms,” Branham said.

Huntington County resident and 30 year smoker Denny Okuly actually says he approves of the new ordinance.

“I can understand the reasoning for it because it does endanger other people’s health, and yes, I am a smoker but I’m also trying to quit,” Okuly told NewsChannel 15’s Matt McCutcheon.

Meanwhile, others hope this is a sign of things to come.

“I think it should be statewide. I don’t smoke, I’ve never smoked, so I’m prejudice, but I just think there should be a statewide ban on smoking,” said Jim Gordon.

That’s something that’s been talked about on a statewide level by some health groups, but only time will tell if that comes up in the 2010 Legislative Session.

Thomas Nunnery was enjoying a morning ritual at Lindy’s – breakfast, coffee and a cigarette.

Nunnery was sitting with his friends Tim Robinson, Josh Bain and Allen Jackson in a booth on the smoking side of the Raeford Road restaurant’s dining room.

“We’ll have a cigarette with our coffee,” Nunnery said. “Then we have a plate of food, and we’ll automatically light up another.”

“It’s part of the addiction,” Robinson added.

As of Saturday, the friends now have to change their routine. A new law bans smoking in most restaurants and bars.

House Bill 2, aimed at protecting the health of patrons and customers from primary and secondary smoke, prohibits lighting up in the establishments. Exceptions are allowed for cigar bars. Restaurants and bars also can have outdoor smoking decks or patios.

Health officials say they hope the new law is a wake-up call for smokers.

“We love to see things like House Bill 2 go in effect,” said Todd Collier, project coordinator of Breathe Easy Live Well. “Anything like that helps our program. It makes things a little better for us.”

Breathe Easy Live Well is a project of Fayetteville’s Southern Regional Area Health Education Center dealing with tobacco dependence and mental illness. Collier said about 75 percent of severely mentally ill people smoke, and heavy smokers in general die 25 years before nonsmokers.

Collier said he hopes the new law will encourage people to kick the habit, but he said it’s important for them to have a medical plan. He said studies show only about 5 percent of smokers who quit cold turkey stay off cigarettes for good.

Smokers should consult with their doctors, Collier said. He also directs smokers to QuitlineNC, which pairs smokers with a “quit coach” who can help them overcome the habit.

Pat Baros, a Cumberland County public health nurse, said there are several simple steps smokers can take to successfully kick the habit.

Baros suggested setting a date to quit, getting rid of all cigarettes and ashtrays in the house and not letting people smoke around you.

Baros also said telling people that you are quitting may help. She recommended that people who are trying to quit drink a lot of water, exercise and change habits that lead them to reach for a smoke.

“If they like to have a cigarette with their cup of coffee, maybe they should think about a different beverage,” Baros said. “Maybe they should think about going for a walk instead.”

They also shouldn’t get too discouraged if the attempt falls short, she said.

“The average person tries to quit between eight and 10 times before they are finally successful,” Baros said.

Smokers sometimes underestimate how hard quitting is going to be, Collier said. In many ways, giving up cigarettes is harder for smokers than giving up booze is for alcoholics.

Collier said there are seven Federal Drug Administration-approved medications to help smokers quit, most involving nicotine replacement therapy. There’s no reason smokers shouldn’t take advantage of the help if appropriate, he said.

“The way we look at it is, why quit cold turkey when there are medications that are approved?” Collier said. “Why be miserable when you don’t have to?”

Collier noted that, even with a smoking ban in restaurants and bars, smoking is still more socially acceptable than drinking.

“You can’t take an alcohol break at work, but you can go outside and smoke,” he said. “You can’t drink and drive, but you can smoke and drive.”

Whatever the strategy for quitting, health officials said it’s important to make the attempt. Collier cited statistics that show about 13,000 North Carolinians a year die from tobacco-related illnesses.

Collier said he hopes the new state law is a vehicle to get information out about the health benefits of quitting smoking. Some bars and restaurants are publicizing the Quit Line number on drink coasters, he said.

“I think access to help will be increased,” he said.

Many smokers, though, say the inability to smoke in restaurants and bars won’t move them to give up cigarettes.

Lukas Blair was smoking and drinking a cup of coffee outside the Coffee Scene on Morganton Road. He said the smoking ban didn’t surprise him, since he previously lived in states where the practice was already outlawed.

Blair said he can see the point of banning smoking in family restaurants, but he thinks it should be permitted in adult establishments such as bars, if the owners want to allow it.

As for himself, Blair said, “I’ll just go outside if I want a cigarette. That’s pretty much it.”

WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. – Although it remains to be seen if the smoking ban that goes into effect Saturday will have impact on patrons of restaurants and bars, the Forsyth County Health Department has begun a campaign to encourage more people to eat out.

“Tasty Tuesdays is an opportunity for people to go out and support our local restaurants in the change to the smoke-free law,” said the health department’s Yolanda Miller.

Beginning midnight Jan. 2, smoking will be prohibited in all enclosed areas of all North Carolina restaurants and most bars.

“We’re riding it out to the end,” said Betty Ashby, the owner of Big Shotz Tavern in Clemmons.

Although Ashby doesn’t believe she’ll lose many customers to the new law, the idea of putting up no-smoking signs and removing ashtrays is not something she totally agrees with.

“I still have a little bit of an issue with that, even though I’m a nonsmoker and think people should be able to go to restaurants that don’t allow smoking. I also am not sure I think the legislature should be making these decisions for us,” she said.

North Carolina lawmakers passed the smoking ban earlier this year in large part because the U.S. Surgeon General said there’s scientific evidence that proves any level of second-hand smoke is dangerous.

And Miller points out that is the main issue.

“Being able to eat without my eyes burning, hair smelling like smoke, clothes smelling like smoke. I’m really looking forward to it,” she said.

While smoking will be prohibited indoors, patrons can still smoke on outdoor sections of restaurants as long as the area is not enclosed.

The new law also protects specialty industries, like cigar bars, private clubs and country clubs that are nonprofit. Yet all other businesses will need to make the switch.

“I think the flip side of it is, I think we will gain a lot of new guests … those that didn’t like to go somewhere that allows smoke,” said Ashby.

Which is exactly what the Forsyth health department’s promotion is aiming for.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A local group is pushing to pass laws that will end smoking in bars and dictate where people can smoke outside.

Shelley Courington is with a group called CHART. They’re about to start lobbying state lawmakers to ban smoking in bars. They’re also pushing to keep smokers from lighting up within 25 feet of a building.

“We have to have a healthy safe workforce in Tennessee. We have to make it safe for our workers, no matter what,” said Courington.

There’s obvious resistance to the idea, but CHART claims they have new data from the Institute of Medicine. It shows when you reduce exposure to second hand smoke, you directly reduce your heart attack and stroke rates.

The study also found in states where smoking bans are in effect, heart attack rates dropped 40 percent.

CHART said they are looking to new laws to keep people healthy, especially at a time when state funding for smoking cessation programs has dramatically dropped.

“The fact is we are dead last when it comes to how much we put aside for cessation funding,” said Courtington.

Tennessee used to spend $5 million on stop smoking programs, but because of budget cuts that number is down to $200,000.

The health department said since smoking was banned in Tennessee restaurants a few years ago, the number of smokers in Tennessee has dropped 1 percent.

State lawmakers will start debating the smoking ban issue when they head back into session in January.
By Scott Arnold

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – A group of Native American inmates has filed a federal lawsuit against the South Dakota Department of Corrections, saying a new prison policy that bans the use of tobacco during religious ceremonies is discriminatory.

The Native American Council of Tribes, an organization based at the state penitentiary in Sioux Falls, asked the U.S. District Court to prevent the policy from being enforced. Inmate Blaine Brings Plenty, the group’s chairman, said in the complaint that for Native American prayer to be effective, “it must be embodied in ‘tobacco’ and offered within a ceremonial framework.”

The suit filed Dec. 9 lists Warden Doug Weber, Corrections Secretary Timothy Reisch and Attorney General Marty Jackley as defendants.

Corrections spokesman Michael Winder said Dec. 14 that the department does not comment on pending litigation.

The state prison system went tobacco free in 2000 but made an exception for tobacco used in Native American ceremonies. In an Oct. 19 letter announcing the policy change to tribal liaisons, spiritual leaders, pipe carriers and sundancers, Weber said tobacco used during ceremonies was becomingly increasingly abused and inmates have been caught separating it from their pipe and tie mixtures.

“The tobacco is then sold or bartered to other inmates,” Weber wrote. “Sometimes the prison gangs are pressuring the inmates to sell their tobacco instead of using it for spiritual reasons.”

Weber said the change was requested by Native American spiritual leaders who come to state facilities to conduct ceremonies. He said they told prison officials that tobacco is too addictive and is not traditional to Lakota and Dakota ceremonies.

The Council of Tribes said in the lawsuit that the change violates U.S. Constitutional rights ensuring that no prisoner be penalized or discriminated against solely on the basis of Native American religious beliefs or practices.

The council said in its lawsuit that prisons have been reluctant to give Indian inmates the same rights that non-Indians have enjoyed under state law, and “these attitudes still linger.”

In his letter, Weber said prisons will continue to allow the use of other botanicals such as cansas, sage, bitter root, bearberry, lovage, flat cedar and sweet grass.

Other states, including Nevada and New Mexico, have prison smoking bans but allow American Indians to use tobacco during religious ceremonies. In Nevada, state officials have said the inmates could smoke pipes as long as there were no abuses.

For quite some time, drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes in a bar or restaurant have been complementary activities for many people. Bars often have a near-constant haze and aroma of cigarette smoke due to many patrons’ preference for smoking, and everyone in the bar is exposed, whether they like it or not. But this smoking-and-drinking relationship will come to an end on May 1, when a statewide smoking ban takes effect.

Smoking will be prohibited in all workplaces, including bars and restaurants, according to legislation passed by the House and Senate on Dec. 10. The “workplace” is defined as any place that serves food or drink and has at least one employee, according to the Detroit Free Press. Other places that will not allow smoking include the following:

• Hookah bars: They can continue to operate if they do not serve food or drink.

• Restaurant patios

• Hotels: All rooms will now be non-smoking.

• Construction sites: Smoking is only allowed if workers are outside.

The Free Press reports people are still allowed to smoke in vehicles, home offices, the gaming floors of the three Detroit casinos, cigar bars and specialty tobacco shops. Michigan is the 38th state to pass some type of smoking ban.

Michigan’s lawmakers have tried to pass a smoking ban in the past, but have always hit some kind of obstacle. A major stumbling block has been negotiating a compromise about smoking in the casinos — a legitimate concern, seeing as how the casinos are a prominent draw for visitors and bring business and traffic into the city. Although smoking will be permitted on the gaming floors, it will not be allowed in casino hotels, restaurants or bars.

Both supporters and opponents of the ban have poignant arguments. Supporters say a smoking ban will encourage more patrons to come to bars and restaurants, if they know they will not be breathing smoke or take its odor on their clothes on the way out. There’s the health factor as well. Smoke can irritate the lungs, throat and eyes, especially if people have breathing ailments or other medical conditions, or simply aren’t used to the environment.

Opponents’ major points of contention are that the ban can hurt businesses and also that it tramples on individual freedoms. If smokers aren’t allowed to light up in bars like they always have been, they’ll stop going, opponents say. Revenues of many bars and similar establishments will fall, further damaging the economy. And while the act of smoking is not illegal, any restrictions on where people can do it are infringements on smokers’ rights, opponents say.

It is very likely that some workplaces will choose to ignore the smoking ban, and if owners are caught, they will face tickets and fines. However, some establishments in other states with smoking bans choose to have smoking “tip jars” or other devices so smokers can continue lighting up and contribute financially to any possible future fines.

The roots of this action come from fears of losing revenue if people are not allowed to smoke in workplaces. There are certainly some places that have an ambiance because of heavy smoking, and have a higher proportion of smokers versus non-smokers in the regular customer base. However, the rates of adults who smoke in the country has been falling, and according to a 2006 CDC report, about 23.7 percent of adults — less than a quarter — in Michigan were smokers.

In addition, I have been to bars and restaurants in other states with smoking bans, including Illinois, and these places definitely do not seem to be lacking business. In Chicago, for example, many bars have a space right outside the door for smokers to step out for a cigarette break and come back in when they’re done. If anything, the smoking ban will make these areas more appealing to non-smokers, and bring in business in that way. Many people avoid bars strictly because they will come out smelling like a cigarette.

What do you think? Will the smoking ban be detrimental to the state’s economic health, or will it create a clean atmosphere that everyone will enjoy?

By Jessica Sipperley, Mlive
December 15, 2009,

A group of inmates at the South Dakota State Penitentiary wants the Department of Corrections to reinstate their right to use tobacco during religious ceremonies after it was taken away because of concerns about addiction and abuse.

A federally recognized inmate group called the Native American Council of Tribes says the way the change was made constitutes a violation of their right to religious freedom, but it is unclear whether the group’s federal complaint will be allowed to proceed.

“They would normally need to exhaust all the administrative remedies before a lawsuit can be heard,” said Robert Doody, the American Civil Liberties Union’s Director for South Dakota. “I’m not sure if they’ve done that.”

In October, the DOC rescinded an exception to its system-wide tobacco ban, instituted in 2000, that had allowed Native Americans to include it in a blend of herbs smoked during the ceremonies.

“Medicine Men and Spiritual leaders, who lead ceremonies at our facilities, have brought to our attention that it is too addictive to be used for ceremonies,” Director of Prison Operations Doug Weber wrote in a letter announcing the change.

The letter also noted that inmates had been caught separating the tobacco from the rest of the herbs and selling it to other inmates.

The Native American Council of Tribes’ complaint alleges that the change was made without any hearings or input from the inmates using the tobacco.

The complaint names Weber, Attorney General Marty Jackley and Department of Corrections Secretary Timothy Reisch as defendants.

The inmates contacted the ACLU in October, Doody said, but the group is not representing them. While the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 requires inmates to try to handle their grievances through administrative channels before taking them to a judge, he said, the inmates are working on an issue that has grown in stature.

Some religions historically have been misunderstood and oppressed within the prison system, he said, and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 opened the door for practitioners of minority religions to address their concerns by taking legal action.

“Especially those minority religions and minority faiths have suffered from a lack of understanding and awareness,” Doody said.

Michael Winder, spokesman for the Department of Corrections, declined to say whether the inmates had asked for an administrative appeal. The DOC does not comment on pending litigation, he said.

Reach John Hult at 331-2301.

Lansing — Michigan will become the 38th state to ban smoking in public places on May 1, following passage Thursday of the prohibition by the House and Senate and a vow from Gov. Jennifer Granholm to sign the bill.

The long-awaited smoking ban makes exceptions for the gaming floors at the three Detroit casinos, cigar bars, specialty tobacco shops, home offices and motor vehicles, including commercial trucks. The legislation won overwhelming passage in both chambers after more than a year of haggling over whether there should be exemptions.

Smoking will be banned in workplaces and food service establishments, including bars, restaurants, food courts at shopping malls, cafeterias and private clubs.

Violators face fines of $100 for a first offense and $500 for subsequent ones.

“We’re finally dealing with the secondhand smoke issue that has plagued this state for many years,” said Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, who has been pushing a smoking ban for most of a decade.

Granholm called the move a “terrific gift to Michigan.” But not everyone was happy — especially bar owners and the 20.4 percent of residents who light up in Michigan. Nationwide, 18.4 percent do.

“It’s stupid. It violates smokers’ rights,” said Drew Dobt, as he smoked a cigar in downtown Detroit. “That’s why you go (out) — to smoke and drink.”

An amendment calling for a total ban was rejected in the Senate because the House has opposed that version.

Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, called the measure a “blatant overreach by government into the private business environment.” And Lance Binoniemi, president of the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, said it will cost thousands of jobs.

“Michigan taxpayers will be outraged when they hear our elected officials passed a smoking ban that they have acknowledged will cripple our hospitality industry,” Binoniemi said, noting that about a third of the state’s bars and restaurants — about 6,000 — have already voluntarily gone smoke-free.

Ban expected to save money

The state also could lose about $27.5 million in tobacco tax revenue from smokers who quit because of the ban, but will save money on medical costs, according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis.

Over time, the ban will reduce smoking by 5 percent to 20 percent; and the state will save $6.4 million for every percentage point in Medicaid costs that are reduced as a result of the dropoff in smoking, according to the analysis.

Sen. Tom George, R-Kalamazoo, a physician, said cutting smoking is “probably the biggest thing we can do to become a healthier state.” Polls show 70 percent of residents support the ban, said Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

“When it comes down to it, it’s just something that makes sense for Michigan,” said Susan Schechter, directory of advocacy for the American Lung Association Michigan chapter. “It’s long overdue.”

Loophole battle emerged

The ban faced opposition from the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association, Detroit bar and restaurant owners and some lawmakers who object to an exemption allowing smoking in the three Detroit casinos.

Proponents of the loophole argued the casinos needed to compete with tribal facilities, where the law wouldn’t apply.

Jamaine Dickens, a spokesman for MGM Grand Casino in Detroit, said the exemption prevented 2,100 layoffs at the city’s casinos.

Although restaurant owners objected, the ban could help business because nonsmokers will go out more often, said Jelinek, who shepherded the bill through the Senate.

John Colbert, an owner of Baker’s Keyboard Lounge in Detroit, agreed. He said he often gets calls from those who ask if the landmark jazz club is smoke-free.

“Health is an issue,” Colbert said. “People who don’t come now, will probably come.”

Others seemed resigned to the ban.

“We fought for so many years, I guess we have lost the fight and need to deal with it and move on,” said Toby Brown of Pinz Bowling Center in South Lyon, who worries the law will drive folks away from night-time league bowling. “We knew it was going to happen sooner or later.”
December 11. 2009, BY Mark Hornbeck and Christine Macdonald
Detnews

NORTH HAMPTON, N.H.—Surfer Michael Sander believes firmly in New Hampshire’s “Live Free or Die” state motto when it comes to smoking – and that includes his right to smoke on state beaches.

Sander, 24 of Rye, surfs regularly at North Beach and says he would not obey a proposed law to ban smoking on the beach to eliminate second-hand smoke and discarded butts.

“Ban the tourists,” Sander said. “They’re the ones that litter. We put our butts in our pockets. … It’s ridiculous that anyone can tell me where I can and cannot smoke.”

State Rep. Judith Day has filed legislation to ban smoking on beaches in New Hampshire’s 23 state parks, an idea she got from neighboring Maine, which this year became the first state to ban smoking on its beaches.

The Maine law’s sponsor, Sen. John Nutting, said a mother’s complaint prompted the ban.

“The 2-year-old daughter was playing at the beach and all of a sudden she realized that her daughter’s cheeks looked like a chipmunk’s cheeks, just as full and distended as you could get them,” said Nutting, D-Leeds. “When she examined the reason for that, her little girl’s mouth was plum full of cigarette butts that she’d picked up on the beach from people smoking and discarding.”

Day, a North Hampton Democrat, said getting rid of cigarette butts is secondary to her.

“My point is to do it for people’s health,” she said.

Another seacoast Democrat, Susan Kepner of Hampton, has filed a similar bill — but hers also proposes a ban on outdoor smoking in public areas of state parks, such as picnic areas.

“So much of our economy is driven through and around with our state parks and being outside,” Kepner said. “They’re healthy things. This to me is just part of helping New Hampshire residents and guests be healthy.”

Gary Nolan, national director of Citizens Freedom Alliance Inc., sees both bills as “political correctness run amok.”

“What is the point? Is it to ostracize smokers and punish them from smoking or are they relying on the junk science that second-hand smoke is somehow dangerous,” said Nolan whose group defends smokers’ rights.

House Republican Leader Sherman Packard of Londonderry agrees with Nolan.

“We’ve gone pretty far on preventing people from doing something that’s legal. If the goal here is to ban smoking altogether, then just come out and say it,” said Packard.

New Hampshire would be the second state to enact a ban on smoking at state beaches. Puerto Rico also bans smoking on beaches, according to Bronson Frick of the Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights. Frick said almost 100 cities have smoke-free beaches and more than 1,000 cities and a handful of states have outdoor smoking policies ranging from bus stops to business doorways.

Frick said reasons for the bans vary from concern over litter from the butts to keeping smoke out of adjacent buildings.

New Hampshire has laws banning indoor smoking in public buildings, grocery stores, public conveyances, hospitals, restaurants and bars. Businesses must segregate smokers from nonsmokers in workplaces with four or more employees.

Nonsmoker Sheila Foster, 39, of East Kingston, said she isn’t bothered by the smoke when she’s at the beach as much as the discarded cigarette butts.

“If they had places to dispose of (butts), it would be one thing,” she said. “They throw them everywhere.”

New Hampshire should enforce a litter law if that’s the issue, Nolan said.

“If it’s litter, then anyone who has anything wrapped in paper should be targeted as well. That you do with a litter law, not an anti-smoking law,” he said.

State Parks Director Ted Austin believes in promoting a healthy lifestyle, but questions who would enforce the bans. Day’s bill doesn’t include enforcement, a penalty or even signs. Kepner’s bill would let park rangers enforce the law. Violators face a fine of up to $50. Signs would be posted around picnic areas, playgrounds and other areas covered by the law. Campsites and hiking trails are exempt.

“The last thing I want is to turn our staff that should be ingratiating themselves to our guests into law enforcement types,” said Austin.