Chesnee City Council unanimously voted Monday to adopt a no-smoking ordinance, banning the use of tobacco products in restaurants, bars or any workplace within the city limits.

The ordinance originally included only restaurants, but council added bars and other businesses to it before its final reading.

It is the first ban of its kind in Spartanburg County.

Council members said they drafted the ordinance at the request of residents concerned with the health hazards of secondhand smoke. It makes it illegal for people to use any tobacco products, including cigarettes, cigars, pipes, chewing tobacco dip or snuff in city businesses.

“We had a lot of people asking for it,” Chesnee Mayor Max Cash said. “The effects of secondhand smoke have proven to be very harmful. We’re happy to be able to give people what they want. We’re citizens too, and it will be nice for us to be able to go into a place and not have to deal with the smoke.”

Cash said the city chose to include bars in the ordinance even though it doesn’t have any.

“It’s just in case we get any in the future,” he said.

The Chesnee police department will enforce the new ordinance. A police officer or code enforcement officer will inspect businesses randomly to make sure they are in compliance.

Any person violating the provisions of the ordinance will be subject to a civil fine of not less than $10 or more than $25.

Chesnee’s John and Carrie Rhymer were eating dinner with their two children Monday night at the Bantam Chef. The restaurant was one of only two in the city limits that has a smoking section, including Turner’s Family Restaurant.

The Rhymers said it will be nice to bring their daughters out to eat without having to worry about them breathing in smoke.

“I don’t like to smell (smoke) when I eat, but it’s different when you’re a parent because you worry about what it’s doing to your kids,” Carrie Rhymer said.

“I’m glad to hear that (council) passed the ordinance,” John Rhymer said. “I think it’s good for our city.”

Chesnee resident Linda Jennings is a smoker. She said she doesn’t mind the ban, but that’s only because she doesn’t smoke indoors.

“I just don’t do it … not even in my house,” Jennings said. “It’s probably going to affect some people, but I think it’s a good thing. I’ve tried to quit (smoking) but I can’t. I just decided that I’m not going to do it around my grandbabies.”

In South Carolina, five counties and 25 towns or cities have passed smoke-free ordinances, according to the state Department of Health and Environmental Control.

Concerned residents in Spartanburg have tried to convince local leaders to enact a comprehensive countywide or citywide ban on smoking, particularly after the city of Greenville passed its own ordinance in 2007.

About 30 percent of the state’s population is covered by a smoking ban, according to DHEC. The agency said a smoke-free ordinance in Spartanburg would bump that number up to 50 percent.

ust over half of Ohio residents want to let tobacco back in the state’s bars, a new statewide poll finds, though support remains strong for continuing a smoking ban in restaurants and workplaces.

Voters in 2006 approved a constitutional amendment that banned smoking in indoor public spaces, including workplaces, restaurants and bars.

Since then, there’s been discussion of revising the law.

The Ohio Health Issues Poll, conducted on behalf of the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, found that 53 percent of adults surveyed favored repealing the ban in bars.

But while most Ohioans want to have a smoke with their beer, they’d like to keep their jobs and meals out smoke-free, said Jennifer Chubinski, director of health data improvement for the Health Foundation.

The survey found 77 percent of respondents favored continuing the smoking ban in workplaces, and 78 percent favored continuing it in restaurants.

Support for the ban in those locations remained strong even among current smokers, results showed: 60 percent of smokers favored continuing smoke-free workplaces, while 62 percent favored smoke-free restaurants.

There’s also been talk around the state about increasing the state’s cigarette tax. Supporters say a 40-cent hike per pack will generate more revenue for the cash-strapped state and reduce smoking rates, especially among teens.

The Health Foundation’s poll found 48 percent of Ohio adults support the tax increase.

Not surprisingly, support is highest among adults who’ve never smoked – 65 percent – and lowest among current smokers – 14 percent.

Chubinski was surprised to see anyone in favor of increase.

“It’s a tough time to ask people to increase taxes on anything,” she said.

Ohio’s cigarette tax is $1.25 per pack, compared to 60 cents a pack in Kentucky and 99.5 cents in Indiana. Nationally, cigarette taxes range from 17 cents a pack in Missouri to $4.35 in New York.

British American Tobacco Russia (BATR), the largest cigarette producer in Russia, has suggested introducing licensing to sell tobacco products, a company spokesman said on Tuesday.

Alexander Lyuty said BATR works closely with the legislative and executive branches of the Russian government, and said the company could work more effectively in curbing violations in tobacco sales, namely illegal sales to minors.

The Russian government has been pushing to remove tobacco sales from kiosks and street vendors as a means of restricting the sale of tobacco and tobacco products to minors. Tobacco would only be sold in large supermarkets.

Lyuty said if licensing would be in effect, then those kiosks and street vendors would have to register with the Tabakprom Association, of which BATR is a member.

He said that in order for small businesses to sell tobacco, the distributors of tobacco products, for example BATR, would see to it that companies complied with the legal sales of tobacco. If the business sells cigarettes to minors, then BATR would receive a heavy fine and then revoke the business’s license to sell cigarettes in the future.

Small businesses, in particular kiosks, sell some 40% of tobacco in Russia.

Lyuty said if the government removes the right for kiosks to sell tobacco, “part of the market would fall into uncontrollable hands” with people selling tobacco on the streets and on the black market.

Bill Johnson predicted calamity if the City Council extends the smoking ban to his little bar at the corner of Babcock and Callaghan. “I will close the doors. I’ll have no choice,” he said, leaning a little into the microphone.

He was one of the dozens — many of them tavern and pool hall workers — who tore into the proposed ordinance at a June 10 public hearing.

Johnson also is one of three principals behind the San Antonio Mixed Beverage Association, a nearly memberless organization that exists solely to fight the strengthening of San Antonio’s ban. Indeed, political organizer JoAnn Ramon’s handiwork, paid for by SAMBA, accounted for some of the turnout of opponents that night.

Wildly controversial PR consultant T.J. Connolly wasn’t in council chambers, but he’s also working for the association, handling its communications.

Lobbyist Ken Brown, who stood off to the side of the standing-room-only crowd, helped incorporate SAMBA as a nonprofit a year ago. The organization is one of his firm’s clients. Reynolds American, an arm of tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, is another.

So there’s a haze hanging over this scene.

It’s a strategy Big Tobacco commonly uses in its never-ending fight against “smoke-free” ordinances: Find common cause with tavern owners.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with coalition-building. Proponents are doing the same thing, and they, too, have their lobbyist and communications and political strategists.

But if tobacco companies stand behind the opposition — so far behind that they’re invisible — that’s a problem. Unless you’re a fan of hidden agendas.

Councilman Justin Rodriguez, who introduced the ordinance in April, suspects that tobacco is bankrolling SAMBA. “Who’s going to be impacted the most? Tobacco companies,” he said. “They don’t want their fingerprints on it. But, come on, it’s not rocket science.”

Johnson said there’s no tobacco money flowing through SAMBA, and that he, his wife-business partner and another bar owner are the sole principals behind the group.

When I asked how, as owners of small taverns, they could afford their own campaign, Johnson answered: “I drive a Corvette, my wife drives a Cadillac and we own a 2008 Tundra.”

Johnson isn’t new to these kinds of fights. He testified in the Legislature in 2007 and 2009 when lawmakers toyed with a statewide smoking ban.

Brown, too, is a veteran of the tobacco war. Reynolds American hired him in 2008 to fight a similar smoke-free proposal in Corpus Christi. One of his jobs was to coordinate with bar owners. That fight also featured an opposition group that materialized for the occasion: the Corpus Christi Bar Operators’ Association.

The ordinance passed anyway and went into effect last year. Nevertheless, Johnson said he hired Brown after hearing good reviews of his work from friends in Port Aransas and Corpus Christi.

Brown sees his job now as nearly the same one he performed in 2008: helping to stitch together a campaign to stop the proposed ban.

Apart from the bar owners, the opposition includes the San Antonio Restaurant Association — and presumably M. Edward Lopez, a lobbyist representing Fast Eddy’s pool halls in San Antonio and an arm of Philip Morris USA in Austin.

“We have regular conference calls with someone from the restaurants, someone from the bars, someone from — whoever wants to join our coalition, we’re happy to have them,” Brown said. “I just don’t think anybody would be surprised that businesses are trying to protect their business, just like the bars, just like the tobacco companies.”

Just don’t expect to see Big Tobacco when it’s time to step up to the microphone.

By Greg Jefferson
Mysanantonio, 26 Iuni 2010

SALAMANCA, N.Y. – A new law taking effect Tuesday will ban the shipment of cigarettes through the mail and no one will feel the effects more than western New York’s Seneca Indian Nation.

Seneca-owned businesses dominate the discount mail-order cigarette industry. Tribal leaders say the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act will gut the nation’s $100 million a year tobacco economy and eliminate 3,000 jobs held by workers in and outside the tribe.

Already, mail-order businesses in Salamanca were shutting their doors.

Supporters see the PACT Act as a way to limit teenagers’ access to cigarettes and stop smokers from dodging state taxes. But opponents say it’s an attack on tribal sovereignty and a ploy by big tobacco to regain market share being lost to native brands.

Meanwhile, New York smokers were facing a huge hike in the tobacco tax. The state tax on a pack of cigarettes will jump to the highest in the country.

Gov. David Paterson used an emergency spending bill to force legislators to approve the huge tobacco tax hike. The tax on a pack of cigarettes will skyrocket from $2.75 to $4.35, and the tax on cigars and chewing tobacco will climb from 46 percent of the retail price to 75 percent.

In a region where people can easily travel from New Jersey to New York to Connecticut, a higher tax here may encourage smokers to buy their cigarettes elsewhere. New York’s tobacco tax will be much higher than the $3 per pack in Connecticut and the $2.70 per pack in New Jersey.

“I think people will find other ways, go out of state and stuff to buy cigarettes,” said Parkchester Resident Tiffany Barnwell.

Or they could decide to kick the habit. The American Lung Association predicts the tax will encourage many smokers to quit.

“About 15 percent decrease in teen smoking will result as initiation of this tax, and a 5 percent adult smoking decrease from the tax itself,” said Scott Santarella, CEO of the American Lung Association New York.

For the hardcore smokers, even a breathtaking tax hike won’t stop them. “You can tax us. We’ll always keep smoking, because we’re smokers, you know what I’m saying?” said White Plains resident Drew Davis.

The new tax takes effect September 1.

Paterson said the hike, combined with a plan to collect sales tax on cigarettes sold by Native American tribes, will raise more than $400 million a year.

Wcbstv, Jun 28, 2010

Gambling? Maybe. Smoking? No.

That’s the message from the Massachusetts Senate, which voted 24-15 today in favor of an amendment to expanded gambling legislation that would ban smoking in casinos. The vote was a rare rebuke for Senate leaders who wanted to allow smoking in one-fourth of the floor space at the casinos.

As the Senate took up a host of amendments on the second day of debate on the bill, leaders warned that the state will lose as much as $94 million in gambling revenue if it does not allow smoking in its casinos. They pointed out that Connecticut’s casinos allow smoking.

“Only in Massachusetts would we have a casino bill and try to build a politically correct casino,” said Richard R. Tisei, the Senate Republican leader and candidate for lieutenant governor, urging his colleagues to reject the amendment. “Have any of you people ever been to a casino and understand what it takes for a casino to be successful and to draw people in?”

But supporters of the amendment said second-hand smoke will put casino workers’ lives at risk. They pointed out that Massachusetts banned smoking in most workplaces six years ago and that a Harvard School of Public Health study has shown the ban saves 600 lives a year.

“I thought we were trying to create jobs here,” said Susan C. Fargo, a Lincoln Democrat who urged her colleagues to approve the amendment. “Why create jobs for people who will sicken and die? This is the most hypocritical thing I’ve seen in my 14 years in the Senate.”

The bill being considered by the Senate would license three casinos in the state.

If the Senate approves a plan to expand gambling, it will have to be reconciled with a bill passed by the House in April, which calls for two casinos and slot machines at the state’s racetracks.

By Michael Levenson
Boston, June 24, 2010

JEDDAH: The Council of Ministers urged the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) to ban smoking at all airports and their facilities in the Kingdom on Monday. It also advised GACA to impose a fine of SR200 on people who violate the new regulations.

The Cabinet meeting, chaired by Crown Prince Sultan, deputy premier and minister of defense and aviation, approved the recommendations of the 150-member Shoura Council.

Although the Kingdom passed anti-smoking regulations in August 2003, the habit is growing among its population. There are six million smokers in the country who puff away SR8 billion every year. According to one report, smoking-related diseases kill at least 33 people in the Kingdom each month.

Saudi Arabia ranks fourth in the world in terms of cigarette consumption and 41st in terms of population. As many as 13 billion cigarettes are imported into the Kingdom every year.

About 10 percent of the Kingdom’s total smokers are women and 19.3 percent are teenagers. Studies have shown that 13 to 15 percent of young men and women live with smokers and are subjected to passive smoking.

The Cabinet meeting reviewed the current foreign tour of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah and hoped his visits to Canada, the United States, Morocco and France would produce results.

The Cabinet referred to the launch of Ghazal-1, the first Saudi car designed by King Saud University students, adding it boded well for the Kingdom’s decision to invest in a knowledge economy.

The Cabinet decided to sign an accord with South Africa for the repatriation of convicts and accused in criminal cases.

It also approved the contracts that were signed to carry out a major housing project in Jazan, accommodating people displaced as a result of attacks by Yemeni intruders last year. The project includes 6,000 housing units, 31 mosques, 35 schools, five health centers and infrastructure facilities.

By ARAB NEWS
Jun 21, 2010

FUJAIRAH – Shisha cafes in Fujairah will be asked to move permanently to the outskirts of the city before the World Cup finals kick off on Friday, in a move aimed at reducing noice nuisance.

The municipality says now is the perfect time for shisha cafes to make the move – although owners who do not will not face penalties for the time being.

The ban on shisha cafes in residential areas was part of the Federal National Tobacco Law issued this year, which also specified a two-year grace period.

“We will try to organise them to relocate to the beginning of Fujairah city where it will not bother any non-smokers,” said Mohamed al Afkham, the head of the municipality.

“The World Cup is coming and a lot of shisha cafes will be open in the day and late at night.”

Some in the city remained unaware today of the official encouragement to move.

Fujairah Media is erecting a tent beside Fujairah Tower – which is located in the heart of the city – that will serve shisha and show World Cup matches.

“It will open from four o’clock in the afternoon until four o’clock in the morning,” said Sufian al Aqrabawi, the company’s chief engineer.

“Noise won’t be any problem. Everybody likes to to watch a football match or a movie with shisha,” he said.

“There are so many cafes here.”

A daily smoker of double apple-flavoured tobacco, Mr al Aqrabawi said he would continue his habit even if it was banned from the city centre.

“In the end I will take it in my home,” he said.

Others welcomed the move. Major Ahmed Ibrahim, the managing director of the Fujairah International Marine Club, said it was “perfect”.

“It is a noise problem, number one. Number two, it is insecure for the family to have 50 or 60 bachelors sitting there,” he said.

“Women passing by don’t feel comfortable, and besides, it’s unhealthy to have the shisha. Smokers should have an area only for smoking.”

Noise from the cafes near his home is a constant problem during sporting events, he said. “They make a demonstration, they drive in the car, they make too much noise, they shout and scream at shisha,” he said of customers.

Fujairah’s Arabian Drive-In Cinema, where shisha will delivered to customers’ vehicles, will not be affected by the city ban because it is located out of doors.

In January, the Ajman Municipality stopped issuing new licences for shisha cafes in residential areas. Cafes were given two years to relocate, as per the law.
Shisha cafes in Ras al Khaimah expect business to double each night during the World Cup.

“For Brazil and Egypt [matches] we always get more customers, but in the World Cup every seat will be taken, every table will be full,” said Yassir Mahdi, 33, a worker at the Manhattan Cafe, which has more than 270 seats. Profits during the World Cup could leap from Dh750 a night to more than Dh4,000, he said.

Shisha cafes in Ras al Khaimah will remain open at night as long as there are customers to serve, say their owners.

Musaab al Mahi, 23, from Sudan, said there was no better place to watch football. “We go to shisha for football because we like to sit with our friends,” he said. “It’s better than sitting alone in my house.”

BRYAN CO., OK – A new law in Oklahoma aims to make illegal drug use a little more difficult, and it’s starting right in your neighborhood convenience stores.

You’ve probably seen them – small glass pipes on or behind counters at your local gas station.

“The statute reads that if they’re selling tobacco or related items… if they’re selling tobacco then they can have pipes for smoking tobacco,” said T.J. White, Calera’s Assistant Chief of Police.

The little glass products are sold as small flower holders or even tobacco pipes. And when they’re clean, the pipes are not illegal to sell, purchase or even own.

“They’re really not paraphernalia until they’re used as such or in the vicinity of other drugs,” explained White.

But White said he’s never come across one of these pipes used for tobacco, but instead for illegal drug use. And Oklahoma State Legislators agree.

“There is no other use for these pipes at all. Why they were allowed to be sold, nobody knows,” said Representative Mike Shelton. “Tobacco smokers do not smoke tobacco in glass pipes or anything like that.”

Right now these glass pipes are easy to find. KXII crews were even able to purchase one of the small pipes with a flower inside for only $5.00 at a local gas station in Oklahoma Tuesday afternoon.

But starting November 1, 2010, that will all change. You’ll be hard pressed to find one in any store thanks to House Bill 3251.

“I hope this is something that spreads across the United States. This is something that’s only good for our communities, safer for our children and our families,” said Shelton.

The new law will make it a crime for retailers to sell drug pipes which are commonly used to smoke narcotics like meth and crack. And Shelton said the sale of these products should have been banned a long time ago.

“We outlaw crack but we allow you to buy a crack pipe? And it’s as easy as buying a loaf of bread and there’s a problem when we allow that to happen,” he said.

White believes drug users will still find a way to get their fix, but this law will certainly make it more difficult for them.

“Any way that they can be inconvenienced when it comes to using their drugs is definitely going to help. I don’t know if it would eliminate it but it’s definitely a step in the right direction,” said White.

Other states have similar laws; House Bill 3251 was modeled after the laws in North Carolina. Texas does still allow the sale of these types of pipes though. But Shelton hopes soon all states will make selling drug pipes illegal.

By Maddie Garrett
Kxii, Jun 8, 2010

A tall nonfat caramel macchiato with extra foam, please. Just hold the smoke.

Starting Monday, Starbucks customers are welcome to sit outside and sip a while — as long as they don’t light up. The international coffee giant is extending its ban on indoor smoking to outdoor patios and dining areas in California.

The change was prompted by an increasing number of communities that have enacted smoking prohibitions in outdoor dining areas. Mid-Valley smokers say they are disappointed by the rule but understand its purpose.

Brian Roberts, 33, was enjoying a cigarette with his venti coffee Wednesday while reading a paperback at the Marysville Starbucks. He’s not thrilled with the new rule, but said it was to be expected.

“It’s nothing new in California,” the Marysville resident said. “You go down to the East Bay and Pleasanton and you can’t smoke anywhere outside.”

But the rule might spur a slight decline in business, he said.

The patio is popular place to linger, as customers can consume caffeine and cigarettes while they read, chat or do business, he said. Cut off from their nicotine, they might not stick around to refuel.

“People have a right to breathe clean air,” he said. “But we have a right to smoke, too.”

Roberts hasn’t yet decided if he’s going to push the boundaries by keeping his lighting up at least 10 feet from the doorway, or just give in and abide. Either way, the rule will not impact his pack-a-day habit, or his Starbucks patronization, he said.

As a smoker, Andrea Navarrot, 48, tries to be respectful and keep her habit out of smell’s reach. But the ban is probably a good idea for those that are not so courteous, she said.

“You walk out the door, who wants to smell smoke?” she said.

When a young woman lit up near Lori Lewis at Starbucks on Wednesday, she wasn’t bothered with annoyance or temptation, but in seeing someone start the same path she did so long ago. She smoked for 30 years before quitting 10 months ago.

She leaned over to tell the woman about her experience and encouraged her to consider quitting.

“Smoke is so harmful to people,” Lewis said. “They don’t realize, and it’s addicting.”

Live Oak resident Courtney Williams works at the Togo’s next door to the Starbucks on Colusa Avenue. She spends all her breaks at one of the tables outside the coffeeshop, stealing a quick smoke or two before she goes back to work.

Even though it means she’ll need to find a new smoking spot, she doesn’t mind the new rule, she said.

“I think businesses or any place anyone owns has the right to say no smoking,” she said. “I don’t believe I have the right to smoke anywhere.”

With Mother Nature hinting this week at the summer weather to come, Yuba City residents Bill and Roberta Fox are looking forward to afternoons on Starbucks patios with good books and icy drinks.

They were relieved to learn the cigarette smoke that had marred previous experiences should no longer be a problem.

“A lot of times we have to get up and go home because she has asthma,” Bill Fox said of his wife. “And I know people have their rights, but my mother died of second-hand smoke.”

By Ashley Gebb
Appeal-Democrat , June 03, 2010

European Commissioner John Dalli taking a lung-test offered to passers-by yesterday in Brussels. "I passed without any problem because I gave up smoking 10 years ago," he said after the test.

The smoking ban in Malta was facing serious enforcement problems, an EU-wide survey indicated yesterday, confirming the widespread perception that exists locally.

More than a third of Maltese respondents admitted that when they last visited a bar, people there were smoking. The survey was conducted last October.

Although it seems that restaurants are more careful, 16 per cent said people were allowed to smoke even in such places.

The smoking ban was introduced in 2004 amid controversy and protests, especially from the entertainment business, who feared the ban would cost them serious money.

The survey revealed that the cost of cigarettes had little effect on smokers and many still continued to light up despite almost yearly increases in price.

Only 21 per cent said they had quit smoking because of an increase in cigarette prices in the past year and 75 per cent said price was not really an issue.

Health concerns are much more of a deterrent as 82 per cent of those who quit smoking in the past year did so for health reasons.

So how many people actually smoke in Malta?

According to the survey, just under a fourth of the Maltese population (24 per cent) does so regularly and another 15 per cent used to smoke but have quit. On the other hand, 59 per cent said they had never touched nicotine.

Among the smokers, 16 per cent smoke more than a packet of cigarettes a day while a relative majority, 43 per cent, put between 11 and 20 cigarettes a day between their lips.

Nearly seven in 10 said they didn’t allow smoking in their homes and almost half didn’t allow it in their car. A quarter of respondents said they still experienced passive smoking at their place of work for at least an hour a day.

Slightly more people smoke in the EU than in Malta: The survey shows that nearly one in three Europeans still lights up, despite the fact that tobacco kills half of its users. It is estimated that 650,000 die every year in the EU due to tobacco-related illnesses.

Launching this year’s anti-tobacco campaign in Brussels on the occasion of the 2010 No Tobacco Day, to be marked on Monday, Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner John Dalli said the Commission would be reviewing its existing legislation on tobacco products in order to continue to cut consumption.

Ivan Camilleri
28th May 2010

ATHENS, Greece — The Greek government took advantage of World No Smoking Day Monday to announce new plans to ban smoking in public places, although Greeks have proved resistant to previous crackdowns.

“This total ban will be applied to all public places, at work, in restaurants, cafes and bars,” the health minister said in a statement, as the government tried to tighten an already existing but often defied ban.

Casinos and night clubs over 300 square metres (3,229 square feet) are temporarily exempt from the September ruling, given an extra eight months to make the necessary changes.

A bill in preparation should also extend the ban on outside tobacco advertising, to cinemas and street campaigns that hand out free cigarettes.

It is the government’s third attempt to implement a tobacco ban since 2002, the latest coming into effect in July 2009, but with few checks or disciplinary measures in place, Greeks have been quick to break the law.

Over 40 percent of people smoke in Greece, which is the second biggest producer of tobacco in Europe.

There has been much media coverage in both domestic and foreign outlets of a comprehensive smoking ban supposed to go into effect in China next year. With more than 300 million smokers nationwide and a deeply entrenched smoking culture, that seems a formidable challenge.

Nevertheless, China committed itself to implementing a “thorough indoor smoke-free” environment within five years when it signed on to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in January 2006. The five years are soon up and it’s time to make good on the pledge.

To that end, the Ministry of Health held a press conference earlier this week, to declare that smoking should be banned in all public venues, workplaces and on public transportation by next year. It also vowed to ban smoking in all its offices in four months and said all hospitals should go smoke-free by next year. To drive the message home further, ministry employees will no longer be allowed to give cigarettes as gifts, a common tradition in Chinese business culture.

But so far there are few signs the promised national ban of smoking in public places will actually materialize.

Jiang Yuan, the vice director of the CDC Tobacco Control Office of China, said, “I think it’s almost impossible to realize this target next year for China.”

She said only a few cities in China have so far approved local tobacco-control regulation, such as Shanghai, Hangzhou and Guangzhou, but even there the smoking ban is mostly targeting offices and public working areas, excluding restaurants or bars. She said that without national legislation, the WHO requirement is unlikely to be met.

“In China, plans turn to reality in a short time only if the government is determined to do it,” Zhang Jing, the spokeswoman of Chinese Association on Tobacco Control or CATC told Reuters on Monday. “But now the problem is we are not sure whether the government has decided.”

Yang Qing, a director with the ministry’s community health department, said at the ministry’s press conference, “Indeed China is still facing very big challenges.” Addressing the difficulty of implementing the ban in restaurants, he said, “There are both smoking and non-smoking areas in restaurants in Beijing, and it might take time for the full implementation.”

By Sue Feng

Approximately all countries prohibited smoking in all public places, especially in working places such as bars and restaurants.
But recently, Michigan became the 38th state which banned smoking in bars and restaurants and many other workspaces. The majority of Michigan inhabitants, especially non-smokers without any question accepted this legislation, researchers showed in their recent study.

However, the minority continues to protest against the law with continuing attempts to spread seeds of confusion about its legality and enforceability.

One main argument which appeared against this law is that it is vague and that’s why is unenforceable.

A very frequent demand is that this new legislation violates fundamental constitutional principles cutting the individual freedom. A result on that theme is that it violates even business owners’ rights to make their personal rules as to conduct on their property.

Researchers declared that the smoking ban is an introduction to prohibitions on all sorts of other things, like smoking in one’s own home, or selling fatty foods. And conclusively, there is the scream that the new law will kill Michigan businesses.

However, the anti-smoking law was enforced and with certainly prohibited bar and restaurant owners from permitting smoking in their establishments.
The new law implements warrant in both national and state constitutions for protecting the health and general benefit of state inhabitants. It does these changes only to protecting them from exposure to harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Researchers found that the health hazards created by secondhand cigarettes smoke are real. Among these hazards the most frequently met are: lung cancer, respiratory disorders and heart disease.

Moreover, the new legislation is a well established position of the state’s police powers, in this way and officials would control and regulate the activity of businesses easier.

The current main event among the 37 states that preceded Michigan in prohibiting smoking in bars and restaurants showed that laws of this kind are not business killers. Even there is a strong suggestion that business really increases when such limitations were imposed on smoking.
As it is known most of Americans are less strictly to the laws people. That is why is very hard to receive good results from such a legislation. However authorities hope that implementation of this long-awaited limitation on smoking in public places will arise effectively.

Jackson City Council President Frank Bluntson wants to make Jackson completely smoke free, but not everybody is onboard.

“I’ve been getting lots of calls from black bar owners. They say, ‘Mr. Bluntson, you are going to put us out of business,’ ” he said.

Bluntson shrugged. “It’s a public health issue,” he said, adding that he does not think the effect on businesses will be that severe.

Upset with lax enforcement of a partial smoking ban that went into effect more than a year ago, Bluntson said he plans to toughen the law with a smoking ban similar to the ones adopted in surrounding municipalities. All he needs is the votes.

The council was split on the issue in 2008 with some, like Bluntson and then-Council President Leslie McLemore favoring a total ban. Others worried about the effect it would have on businesses.

Council members Jeff Weill, Marshand Crisler and Margaret Barrett-Simon helped pass a compromise position that allowed smoking in limited circumstances in bars.

That partial ban covers most public places but exempts “stand-alone bars,” establishments defined as making less than 25 percent of gross revenue from food. That should mean smoking is allowed only in bars where beer is the only alcohol sold, since state law requires any establishment serving wine and liquor to make a quarter of its money from food.

But the city has not enforced the ordinance and a Clarion-Ledger investigation into some of Jackson’s larger establishments found breaking the city law was the rule, not the exception. Several business owners said they were unaware the law applied to them and that the city has done little to explain the ordinance.

With evidence the partial ban is not working, Bluntson wants to move ahead with an outright ban he believes will be less confusing and easier to enforce. The council’s new configuration may help.

Ward 5 Councilman Charles Tillman, a proponent of a total ban last time, is onboard this time as well.

“A healthy city is a prosperous city,” he said.

This time, Weill, having heard the complaints of restaurant owners about poor compliance with the partial ban, has voiced support for a total ban of indoor smoking. The swing votes will come from new council members Chokwe Lumumba and Tony Yarber.

Lumumba, a civil rights attorney, said he is concerned with possible civil liberties issues with a total ban.

“I would have to give that a little more thought and probably would have to hear from my constituents on that,” he said.

Yarber could not be reached for comment.

Barrett-Simon has been noncommittal but voted against a total ban last time.

Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes remains the staunchest opponent of a smoking ban in any form. Although he does not smoke, he said someone on the council has to stand up for the rights of smokers.

Stokes said it is not up to him to tell people not to smoke.

“It’s a sad sight to see people at the university hospital having to walk all the way to the street in the wintertime, some of them pulling medication, those drips and everything, to go smoke because it is a public building,” he said.

More than 30 cities in the state have smoking restrictions and the number of metro-area cities with total bans is growing.

Brandon, Clinton, Flora and Ridgeland have banned smoking in public places. Madison restaurants have a voluntary ban, but the mayor is pushing to make the ban official.

Ridgeland went smoke free almost three years ago.

“Overall, I think it has been a good thing. We haven’t had any complaints whatsoever,” said Tim Cook, manager of the Parker House Restaurant. “We have an outdoor patio area for people who do want to smoke, so we aren’t alienating anybody.”

Amanda Butler, bartender at the Pelican Cove Grill near the Ross Barnett Reservoir, called the Ridgeland ban “ridiculous.”

“It does hurt us. We have a lot of smokers out here,” she said.

Butler said the ban makes it hard for her customers to smoke even in the grill’s outside areas. “It is kind of hard to find anywhere to smoke these days,” she said.

Bluntson said he would put the revised ordinance on Tuesday’s council agenda.

Tillman said enforcement is the problem with the current ordinance. If a total ban is enforced fairly, it can work, he said.

MID-MICHIGAN -Clearing the air. In just two weeks, Michigan’s no smoking ban will take effect in many public places.

The statewide smoke-free air law goes into effect May 1. Already many local businesses and smokers are gearing up for the change.

Saginaw Street has a good number of restaurants and bars. If you come downtown or go anywhere in the area, even if you sit outside like over at Blackstone’s, you still won’t be able to light up.

Late last year, the governor signed legislation making the state smoke free, meaning no smoking in all bars, restaurants and workplaces. Some casinos and cigar bars are excluded.

Non-smoker Mitch Wardoski says he’ll enjoy his time out even more with most places going smoke free.

On the business end, bars like Firkin and Fox in Burton know the change will have an affect on business. Even under the new law smokers can’t even light up outside.

An effort to extinguish the city’s ban on flavored chewing tobacco is up in smoke.

The maker of Skoal and Copenhagen smokeless tobacco sued the city claiming only the feds can regulate the sale of tobacco products.

Manhattan Federal Judge Colleen McMahon shot them down Wednesday, saying federal law allows communities to set their own policies about access to tobacco.

“This decision … is not only a win for the children of New York City,” said City Council Speaker Christine Quinn.

“Our law is a good progressive law that will protect our youngest New Yorkers. If tobacco companies think they can fight common-sense legislation, this court decision clearly shows otherwise.”

The 2009 law bars the sale of flavored cigars and chewing tobacco except in tobacco bars.

It does not cover flavored cigarettes or menthol chewing tobacco but focuses on flavors favored by teens – vanilla, chocolate, honey, candy, fruit-flavored and spiced.

U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Manufacturing Co. could not be reached for comment.

California lawmakers voted Monday to ban smoking at 278 beaches and state parks in one of the nation’s far-reaching regulation of tobacco.

The new legislation calls for fines up to $100 for those caught smoking at a state beach, or in a designated section of a state park. However, smoking will still be allowed in some parking lots and campgrounds.

The smoking ban passed the state Assembly today and now goes back to the Senate, which already approved the measure, for some minor amendments. The vote followed party lines, with Republicans opposed to the ban because they feel it is unwarranted meddling in legal behavior.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has not yet indicated publicly indicated whether he will sign the legislation.

Lawyers acting for Jack Richard Foster claim the staff at High Down prison, Surrey, breached their client’s human rights by submitting him to ”cruel and unusual punishment”.

They argued that, as a tobacco addict and habitual smoker, he should have been given nicotine skin patches, chewing gum or some other means to satisfy his nicotine craving during the period the smoking ban was in force.

Philip Rule, appearing for Foster, said at the High Court in London today the case also raised concern over the adequacy of the guidance given by Justice Secretary Jack Straw concerning the denial of nicotine to prisoners as a punishment for breaches of discipline.

Mr Justice Collins adjourned the case so that more information could be gathered. He said it should come on for a full hearing in June-July this year.

He described the legal issue raised as ”quite an important one for the future”.

Foster faced his smoking ban at High Down in February 2008 when he was aged 19 and the jail was providing accommodation for him as a young offender.

His punishment for swearing at a prison officer included seven days’ loss of tobacco, as well as 14 days’ loss of canteen privileges and seven days’ loss of earnings.

His legal team argued there were more appropriate ways of disciplining him without violating his fundamental rights. The prison authorities were under a duty to offer ”nicotine replacement therapy” to prisoners if tobacco was withdrawn as a punishment.

In the case of Foster, his ”mental vulnerabilities” were well known and it should have been provided because of the potentially adverse consequences on his well-being and behaviour.

Mr Rule told the court today: ”The governor should have appreciated how much harder it was on him because of his various problems.”

He said depriving Foster of tobacco without providing nicotine substitutes amounted to ”cruel and unusual punishment” in breach of a statutory duty imposed by the 1688 Bill of Rights, as well as a violation of his rights under the 1998 Human Rights Act.

If his case succeeds, the court was told Foster intends claiming damages under the European human rights convention.

The judge said: ”I can see that for the future, from your client’s point of view, this problem could come up again – if he is still smoking, as I imagine he is.”
22 Mar 2010, Telegraph

An anti-tobacco group on Thursday reported a current lawmaker and two former legislators to the National Police, accusing them of eliminating a clause designating tobacco as “addictive” in a health bill passed last year, and claiming to have a signed document implicating the three in the crime.

The Coalition Against Corruption of the Anti-Tobacco Clause said that the three House of Representatives lawmakers, before ending their tenure last year, had ordered that the clause designating tobacco as an addictive substance be excised.

“What we have are hard evidences and not just mere indications. We have a document signed by those people ordering the State Secretariat to ‘mutilate’ the clause,” said Kartono Muhammad, a member of the coalition, also known as Kakar.

“We demand justice and that the police investigate this case. What is the motive to ‘delete’ a clause from the health bill. This is a systematic crime and should not happen again in the future,” he said.

The three accused were named as Ribka Tjiptaning from the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), Mariani Baramuli Akib and Asiah Salekan, both from Golkar Party.

Kartono said police considered the act a crime that could be charged under the Criminal Code, and that the report to the police was delivered after the Ethics Council of the House of Representatives concluded its investigation, saying the deletion of the clause was not just an administrative matter.

Meanwhile Tjiptaning, who led the House committee responsible for deliberating the health bill, said that she was ready to face the complaint.

“I have clarified it to the House’s Ethics Council so it would be better to ask them.”

Tjiptaning had previously claimed that the elimination of the clause was only an administrative error, saying the House had mistakenly delivered an older draft of the bill to the State Secretariat.

Mariani told the Jakarta Globe that the accusation was ridiculous and unfounded. She said the article had only been discussed a little further to accommodate the request of some organizations that had asked the commission to reconsider the anti-tobacco legislation.

“I’m not crazy. I would never deliberately omit an article in a law that has been passed by the plenary because it’s a violation against the Constitution,” she said. “But it is our duty to consider everybody’s importance.”

Mariani said she could not understand the reason behind the accusations because the article in question was eventually mentioned in the health law that was passed in September.

“The health law is complete, there is no missing article, so I cannot understand why would they sue us,” she said.

Kakar is made up by a number of nongovernmental organizations, including the Indonesian Consumer Protection Foundation (YLKI), Indonesia Corruption Watch, the Indonesian Tobacco Control Network and the National Commission for Child Protection (Komnas Anak).

The case was reported to the Jakarta Police in December but was dropped when authorities said that a case with the potential for nationwide ramifications should be dealt with by the National Police.

The Jakarta Police also said that they had difficulties finding an appropriate violation to fit the accusation.
March 18, 2010 Thejakartaglobe

Among the dozen or so initiatives that could be on the November ballot is a new measure that would tax cigarettes by an additional $1 per pack. The idea is not a new one. Tobacco taxes have been routinely introduced by Democrats in recent years as a way to help close the state’s budget gap. But this measure is different. Instead of directing money into the state’s general fund, the initiative provides new funding for cancer research and research facilities.

The measure is backed by former Senate leader Don Perata, D-Oakland, who is now a candidate for Oakland mayor. Perata, who himself is a cancer surviver, said his recent
Getting buy-in from other supporters was not always a sure thing. Other state programs, including First 5, are dependent on tobacco taxes for revenues, and increased taxes on cigarettes could reduce the sales of cigarettes. That is by design, and an argument proponents use in favor of the increased taxes. But they also threaten programs that rely on tobacco taxes for their survival.

Perata agreed to use part of the new tax revenues to protect funding for First 5, which was itself funded through a 1998 measure that levied a tax on cigarettes to pay for early childhood development programs. A report from the state’s legislative analyst found the new taxes proposed in the Perata measure could reduce revenues to First 5 by as much as $45 million per year.

Although some of the hurdles have been cleared to appease what is known as the heart, lung and cancer community inside the Capitol, the measure still faces challenges at the ballot box. While California voters have sponsored new levies on tobacco products before, passing Proposition 99 in 1988 and Proposition 10 in 1998, recent efforts have been less successful.

In November 2006, California voters rejected a tobacco tax measure, Proposition 86. That measure would have imposed a $2.60 per pack increase on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

Advocates say this year’s proposal is less ambitious and less complicated than Proposition 86. Not only is the proposed tax hike smaller, but Proposition 86 divided the money up 26 different ways. This measure spends about three-fourths on cancer research and the remaining 25 percent on tobacco prevention and education.

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, has a bill, SB 600, that would tax cigarettes by an additional $1.50 per pack. But unlike Perata’s initiative, the measure would raise money for the state’s general fund. Padilla proposal would direct 85 percent of the new tax into the state’s general fund. The remaining 15 percent would be placed into a new cancer research account.

Padilla’s measure stalled last year in the Senate Appropriations committee.

“There wasn’t sufficient support in the Legislature or the governor’s office for a tobacco tax increase,” said Jim Knox, vice-president of legislative advocacy for the American Cancer Society. “We’ve tried 28 times in the last 27 years to raise tobacco taxes through the Legislature, and were only successful once.”

Knox said they have abandoned hope of passing a tobacco tax in the Legislature this year and are focused on the initiative process.

Creating new research accounts via ballot initiative is nothing new. Most recently, the state passed a new general obligation bond to fund a new center to conduct stem-cell research.
But unlike the stem cell institute, the new cancer research entity proposed in this initiative would be subject to the state’s open records and public meeting laws.

Language in the initiative also appears geared to generating support from the public safety community. Three percent of the new tax revenue would go to a new law enforcement fund to “support law enforcement efforts to reduce cigarette smuggling, tobacco tax evasion and counterfeit tobacco products,” according to language in the initiative. That 3 percent could translate to more than $25 million per year.
By Capitol Weekly

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.