Many public departments and organisations working in the federal capital have no proper mechanism to enforce anti-tobacco laws and any check on violation during duty hours within their premises.

Thousands of people who do not smoked, become victims of second hand smoke as smokers openly smoke cigarettes in government offices which is a clear violation of concerned laws, causing harmful effects on health of non-smokers, citizens complained.

Cognizant of deleterious impact of tobacco, legislation was undertaken by the

Ministry of Health and ‘Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health Ordinance 2002’ was promulgated.

Later, through an SRO the government disallowed designated areas in offices for smokers, which were earlier allowed in the ordinance and totally banned smoking in any public place or office to protect the health of non-smokers.

Prior to issuance of the SRO, all public and private offices were allowed to allocate a separate place for smokers like smokers’ corner within office premises with adequate arrangements.

The citizens demanded that after promulgation of the laws all public and work places have become smoke free therefore smokers should not be allowed to use tobacco in their offices or at public places.

“Why such laws are not being implemented in true spirit and violators are not being stopped to do so. It seems no one is serious to enforce such laws,” Muhammad Aftab, a citizen of federal capital questioned. He added complete implementation of the law and strict action against violators will help to protect health of non-smokers particularly in public offices.

It is pertinent to mention here that Pakistan had signed and ratified multisectoral and multidimensional Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) on May 18, 2004 and November 3,2004 respectively. Under provisions of FCTC, the country is required to bring its laws and policies in line with the global convention.

Dr. Arif Azad, executive director of The Network for Consumer Protection said that tobacco was the main cause of numerous hazards to human health, adding that all national and international obligations should be followed by the concerned authorities in this regard to check on use of tobacco particularly in offices.

He said smoking causes many diseases and ailments including heart attack, cancer of lungs, oral cavity, esophagus, larynx and diseases like chronic bronchitis and emphysema. He said the organisation is working to raise the level of awareness of policy makers on the issue for making effective policies for tobacco control in the country.

According to health experts, the use of tobacco continues to be a major public health challenge in Pakistan where 100,000 annual deaths occur due to tobacco related diseases.

They added tobacco consumption in the country is increasing manifold as a result of aggressive marketing and promotion of tobacco products by the tobacco industry including multinationals. When contacted an official of Tobacco Control Cell, Ministry of Health said that SRO withdrawal on designated areas for smokers will help cell to have strictly check on law violators with the help of public and concerned departments.

He said a strategic plan of action has been made by the cell with focus on awareness programme for health officials, professionals, teachers, decision makers, administrative staffs etc.

It is a program that helps smokers throughout the state. Right out of Roswell Park. The New York State Smokers Quit Line.

“Last year we got nearly three hundred thousand New Yorkers to call us,” said Dr. Michael Cummings of Roswell Park.

This is part of the anti-tobacco program, rolled back in last year’s budget, from 85 million dollars in funding in 2008, to 68 million for 2009. In this deficit reduction program, it loses ten million more. Cummings called the cuts penny wise and pound foolish, saying the state tax payers pay 25 billion dollars a year, treating tobacco related diseases, and people quitting saves New York State in the long run.

“This is something that is going to trickle across the state, affect the prevention programs that occur to educate our children,” added Cummings.

Roswell Park gets about 2 million dollars for this program. Cummings thinks a third of that could be gone in this latest round of cuts. They have already seen changes. The amount of medication they can offer smokers who call in, and fewer calls because there are less ads to let people know they are there. Wiith less funding, it will affect their ability to hire people, and deliver services.

“We are heading in the wrong direction. This is a program that has been working, and our prevalence of smoking is going down,” Cummings said.

But lawmakers again add tough decisions have to be made during the fiscal crisis. State Senator Michael Ranzenhofer voted for the deficit reduction plan.

“There are many good programs, and the money is not there. The money does not grow on trees, and I favored many other cuts,” said Ranzenhofer.

After a 2007 landmark court decision that recognized the cause-and-effect relationship between smoking and cancer, anti-smoking crusaders have been rearranging their focus to address the additives contained in cigarettes. This time, a court is showing renewed interest in the issue amid a growing public awareness over the harmful effects of smoking.

The legal battle dates back to 1999 when a group of lung cancer patients and distraught families filed a damages suit against KT&G, Korea’s largest tobacco company by sales volume.

It took the court eight years to reach the conclusion that smoking can cause lung cancer but denied a request for compensation, stating that it couldn’t be ruled out that other factors besides smoking had caused their affliction.

Now, the families and victims, supported by a group of lawyers, are changing their tack, claiming that KT&G uses additives to make cigarettes more addictive, and therefore more difficult quit.

For the first time, the presiding judge in the appeal case visited the KT&G factory to conduct an on-site inspection.

There have been some overseas rulings made in favor of heavy smokers with lung cancer, but it has not been the case in Korea.

The first ruling, handed down back in January 2007, supported the tobacco maker, saying that the plaintiffs’ allegation that smoking was solely to blame for their lung cancer was groundless.

At that time, Judge Cho Kyung-ran of the Seoul Central District Court admitted there was a correlation between smoking and the plaintiffs’ illness, but dismissed their compensation claim, saying there is “no evidence” to prove that the lung and laryngeal cancers of the plaintiffs were directly caused by smoking.

But Bae Keum-ja, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, is now pointing to the additives as the cause for addiction.

“A cigarette contains hundreds of additives to get smokers addicted to smoking faster and make it harder to quit,” the lawyer and renowned anti-smoking crusader Bae told The Korea Times. “In the first ruling, the court took cigarettes as a product made in conventional way – putting dried tobacco leaves on a piece of paper and rolling it up – and that those with a strong will can quit smoking. But it’s not true at all.”

Bae claims KT&G mixes “nearly 600 chemical additives” with tobacco leaves in order to get smokers addicted faster and make it harder to quit.

As part of efforts to back the allegation, Bae asked the judges presiding over the trial to inspect a KT&G plant in Daejeon.

Three judges of the Seoul High Court, representatives from both sides and reporters visited the plant last month. Presiding judge Sung Ki-moon said following the inspection it was helpful in deepening his understanding and knowledge about the cigarette making process.

KT&G admits a cigarette is made up of tobacco leaves and chemical additives, but refuted Bae’s allegation, saying the unnatural substances have nothing to do with addiction.

Park Ghyo-sun, a lawyer for KT&G said, “It’s true we use chemical additives. But they are only for better taste and flavor.”

The lawyer for the lung cancer patients recently asked the court to issue an administrative order to make the list of chemical additives contained in KT&G cigarette public. But the company, which holds nearly 70 percent domestic market and export products to the United States and its neighboring countries, was reluctant to do so, calling it confidential information. Observers predict the second ruling will be made as early as next year.

According to the National Cancer Center, nearly 67,000 people died of cancer in 2007 alone. Of them, 12.1 percent were lung cancer patients.

By Park Si-soo
pss@koreatimes.co.kr

JIANG ALIPO, The government told the National Assembly that it is going to continue supporting tobacco farming despite the increase of cancer cases caused by cigarette smoking since that is not the solution to the problem.

The Deputy Minister for Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives, Dr Mathayo David Mathayo said that one of the factors for not stopping the production is that 85% of all tobacco produced in the country is exported, thus only the remaining 15 is consumed in the county.

“Tobacco farming and production employs 1.3 per cent of population, which is equal to 500,000 Tanzanians and their families depending on the crop for their livehoods,” explained Dr Mathayo.

However, the deputy minister acknowledged that cigarette smoking has both long term and short term effects, saying that it is the reason for restrictions in cigarette advertising, health warning on the packets and not allowing it to be sold for persons under 18 years.

“I cannot choose between the economic advantages of tobacco production and the health effects that cigarette smokers get, but the precautions and warnings ensure that those using the product know its effects and are all adults, thus have the ability to make decision for themselves,” he said.

Dr Mathayo was responding to a question by Mr Mohamed Habib Mnyaa (Mkanyageni –CUF) who asked the minister to choose between the two in his supplementary question during the parliament question and answer session this morning. In his principal question, he asked the minister about economic advantages and health effects of tobacco.

Tough new anti-smoking laws have not filtered down to Cape Town’s smokers, who are still puffing away in clubs and pubs.

Amendments to the Tobacco Control Act came into effect on September 4, banning smoking in entertainment areas, including bars, clubs, restaurant patios and walkways, balconies and even in parkades.

The amendments also banned smoking in cars in which children younger than 12 are passengers and put a stop to the sale of products such as sweets and chocolates by cigarette vendors.

While some smokers and restaurant owners claim ignorance of the new laws, others admit that they are aware of the laws and the consequences if caught contravening them.

A snap survey by the Cape Argus showed that many establishments still allow people to puff in walkways and on patios and balconies, while others even allow patrons to smoke indoors.

Paul van Staden of Pretoria, who was smoking outside the Red Moon coffee shop in Long Street, said he was aware of the new legislation but had chosen to ignore it as it was “offensive” to smokers.

“I’m aware of it, but it sucks. Smokers are just being targeted… The government should focus on bigger issues such as drug smuggling and prostitution instead of wasting resources targeting smokers,” he said.

David Stewart, of the Bo-Kaap, echoed Van Staden’s sentiments.

“I think smokers should be given more input when these laws are created,” he added.

Irish tourist Laura Brennan, who was smoking outside the Dubliner at Kennedy’s in Long Street, said she did not know about the amendments and none of the establishments had told her about the new rules.

“In Ireland, no smoking is permitted indoors, but I think it’s still fairly reasonable of the South African government to ban smoking at restaurants and pubs because passive smoking can be very irritating for non-smokers,” she said.

A manager at the Red Moon said most businesses found the new legislation confusing.

“I don’t understand why smoking outdoors is such a crime.

“In my coffee shop, customers smoke in a walkway that is open on three sides. No one is affected by passive smoke,” he said, adding that he couldn’t stop customers from smoking.

“Most people who support my coffee shop are smokers… If I tell them not to smoke outdoors, that will mean the end of my business,” he said.

A manager at the Purple Turtle bar, where smokers were smoking inside, said that although his establishment had made changes to comply with the law, businesses like his would battle to survive if they did not allow smoking.

City Health head Dr Ivan Bromfield said the city was monitoring compliance very closely.

3 November 2009
By Sipokazi Maposa

Macedonia has become the latest country in South Eastern Europe to announce a ban on smoking in restaurants and bars, and the latest to hear vociferous complaints from restaurant owners that their businesses will be ruined.

Currently, the law says that smoking may be allowed in no more than half the area of a bar or restaurant, but Macedonian media reports said that this rule is widely ignored.

Macedonia intends banning smoking in restaurants and cafes from January 1 2010. Customers caught smoking will face fines of the equivalent of 150 to 300 euro, while restaurants and cafes that break the rules will be fined from 2000 to 4000 euro.

The new law also bans the sale of cigarettes to people younger than 16. Those who do will be fined 2000 to 4000 euro.

Macedonia’s A1 television said that proprietors would seek a meeting with authorities to ask for a reconsideration of the ban, Bulgarian news agency Focus said.

In July 2009, Greece banned smoking indoors in all public or private areas used as workplaces, including buses and taxis, and the same month, Turkey – not an EU member – caused an outcry when in the same month it imposed a comprehensive ban on smoking in bars, restaurants and cafes.

A few months earlier, non-EU-member Norway outlawed public displays of tobacco products, while in Switzerland, where smoking legislation is dealt with at canton level, a September referendum led Geneva to reimpose a ban on smoking in public places.

Bulgaria’s northern neighbour and fellow EU member Romania has taken the route of increased excises – twice in 2009 – on the way to matching EU levels in 2010. Lithuania also has twice raised excises in 2009, pushing cigarette prices up by close to 50 per cent in a year.

A sole reversal of the trend was in Croatia, which made headlines around the world by backing down in September on an earlier outright ban, amending the rule to allow smoking in a fifth of the area of a restaurant or cafe.

Oct 26 2009
By Clive Leviev-Sawyer, Sofiaecho

It was a recent trip to the park that finally did it.

Jason Mayo watched as a father pushed his child on a swing, cigarette clenched between his teeth. On every upswing, the child got a face full of exhaled smoke.

“We can’t tell people how to parent,’’ said Mayo, a member of the Ayer parks and recreation committee, which has banned smoking in the town’s recreation areas. “But all the other kids around him were inhaling that cigarette too.’’

As antismoking sentiment sweeps across the country, nonsmokers are taking back bars, restaurants, and workplaces, snuffing smoking out of its indoor havens. And now some of them are turning their sights on the great outdoors.

Holliston and Upton have enacted similar outdoor smoking bans. And in another example of the widespread public crackdown on smoking, Needham has outlawed the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies and Newton and Framingham are trying to do the same.

Ayer’s parks and recreation committee implemented its outdoor ban in August, and the panel may also pursue a bylaw at the spring Town Meeting. In a more sweeping stroke, the town’s Board of Health is pursuing a regulation that would apply the prohibition to all town-owned property and land and impose a $100 fine on offenders. The board has set a public hearing on the subject for January.

The outdoor smoking ban in Ayer, a town of about 3,000, covers public recreation areas, including Sandy Pond Beach and Pirone Park. During the past five years roughly 30 communities have enacted such bans, according to Joan Hamlett, Ayer’s tobacco agent and director of the North Central-Franklin County Tobacco Control Alliance. Sharon was the first to do so in 1995.

Depending on the town or city, bans can apply to all parks, beaches, and public places, or just one or two, Hamlett said. There’s been little opposition, she said, and smokers, whether they like it or not, follow the rules.

“Ninety-nine percent of the time, when a smoker sees a sign that they cannot smoke, they abide by it,’’ she said, adding that there hasn’t been a ticket issued yet in the cities and towns with statutes.

“It’s self-enforcing,’’ she said.

In a similar measure, a handful of cities are restricting smokers’ access to cigarettes. Such is the case in Boston, Needham, and Uxbridge, which have banned tobacco sales at pharmacies and drugstores. Framingham and Newton are attempting to establish such a statute. If all goes as planned, Newton will have its ban in place by the end of the year, said Alderman Ted Hess-Mahan.

Selling tobacco products in pharmacies and drugstores sends a mixed message, Hess-Mahan said. For example, a person afflicted with emphysema or lung cancer goes in to pick up a prescription and, while doing so, may have to fight the urge to pick up a pack of cigarettes.

“It’s like sending a heroin addict to a clinic where they’ve got pushers right outside the door,’’ he said. “It defeats the purpose.’’

Antitobacco activists and officials contend that the increase in antismoking statutes have largely been prompted by the statewide smoking ban, which was implemented in 2004.

“People have gotten used to a pretty smoke-free existence,’’ said D.J. Wilson, tobacco control director for the Massachusetts Municipal Association.

Even so, there are an estimated 43.4 million smokers across the country – about 20 percent of the adult population, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – and they’re lighting up when and where they still can.

As a result, Hamlett said, she is hearing a different range of complaints these days, usually related to smoke wafting in through open windows and in apartment buildings.

Wilson, meanwhile, pointed to the disparity in cigarettes being prohibited in indoor environments but still allowed in many outdoor spaces.

People “put down their chair at the beach and someone’s smoking right next to them,’’ he said.

Emphasizing the dichotomy, he said that, in the “cleanest, most natural place, you can have someone smoking next to you.’’

In most cases, though, outdoor bans are prompted by concerns over sanitation and litter, as much as a desire to reduce the adverse effects of second-hand smoke.

In Ayer, officials at a recent public meeting, which only attracted three residents, said they’re dismayed by the large number of cigarette butts littering the beach and the park, and are also concerned about children picking up discarded cigarettes and putting them in their mouths.

“I’m not interested in fining people, I’m not interested in stopping smoking, nor do I see us making gobs of money off this,’’ said parks and recreation committee chairman Tim Taylor. A smoker for more than 20 years – he quit in 1991 – he said he’s unsympathetic to the smoker’s cause. “I just don’t want to see cigarette butts all over the ground.’’

Yet at the same time, it is an air-quality issue as well.

“Secondhand smoke is bad,’’ said committee vice chairman Peter Page.

Also, it sends a bad message.

“If a kid sees an adult smoking,’’ Page said, “it might lead them to think it’s cool.’’

Mayo, a former smoker, said it’s unappealing to “just smell cigarette smoke in the middle of a baseball field and have wafts of smoke blowing in your face while watching a game.

He said he can understand that smokers want the freedom to light up when and where they want. But being a baseball coach, he added that, “When kids are involved, it becomes more of an issue for me.’’

By Taryn Plumb
October 29, 2009

BANGOR, Maine– Attorneys from around the country descended Wednesday on the federal courthouse in Bangor for a conference on a class-action lawsuit against the makers of light cigarettes.

It is the first multidistrict litigation case ever assigned to U.S. District Court in Bangor.

Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is the label the federal judiciary gives cases filed against the same party or parties in federal courts around the nation. Once cases have been combined, a three-judge panel assigns them to one federal judge.

At least 20 lawsuits from around the country have been combined in Bangor. The MDL has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, who has not handled one since his appointment to the federal bench in 2003. Moreover, the original Maine case that led to the 20-case MDL is once again in the hands of Woodcock, whom the U.S. Supreme Court reversed last year.

In a 5-4 a split won by the court’s liberals, the justices ruled in December that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “light” and “low tar” brands. The Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal ciga-rette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Tobacco litigation in federal court is not unusual. Cigarette cases regularly are filed in state and federal courts around the country. It is unusual for the first case in the nation against a particular tobacco company to be filed in Maine.

Bangor lawyer Samuel W. Lanham Jr. filed the lawsuit in August 2005 on behalf of Lori A. Spellman of Levant and Stephanie Good and Allain L. Thibodeau, both of Bangor. Each smoked Marlboro Lights for 15 years or more. The plaintiffs are not seeking damages for personal injuries or health problems caused from cigarette smoking.

Instead, the lawsuit alleges that they were hoodwinked into thinking that “light” cigarettes contained less tar and nicotine than full-flavor cigarettes. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.

Woodcock granted summary judgment in the cigarette makers’ favor in 2006. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling the next year and attorneys for the tobacco firm appealed to the nation’s highest court. It was the first case argued during the U.S. Supreme Court’s term last year.

The meeting Wednesday was purely about scheduling — which motions the judge will hear first, when briefs must be filed, how often Woodcock will hold conferences with attorneys, and which attorneys on both sides will act as liaisons from the court to the more than 25 attorneys scattered throughout the country.

The case is not expected to be decided anytime soon.

No hearings in the case will be held until January or February. Once Woodcock rules on whether the facts in a landmark case upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit can be applied to the MDL case, his decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. That decision also could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys appeared visibly relieved when Woodcock, a Bangor native, said he would conduct monthly conferences via telephone and they would not have to fly to Bangor.

“I’m sure it would be helpful to the Bangor economy to have you all come her once a month, but I don’t think that’s the most efficient use of your clients’ money,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

To see more of the Bangor Daily News, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.bangordailynews.com.

Copyright (c) 2009, Bangor Daily News, Maine

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

Health groups have rejected statements by retailers that they will have trouble adapting to Western Australia’s tough new anti-smoking laws.

State Parliament yesterday passed anti smoking laws said to be the toughest in the country.

Under the new regime, smoking will be banned in alfresco areas of restaurants and cafes, while hotels will be required to make at least 50 per cent of their outdoor areas smoke free.

Retailers are also banned from displaying cigarettes at the point of sale.

Bob Stanton, from the Independent Retailers Organisation, says small retailers will struggle with the change which will prevent them from displaying their tobacco products.

“It’s going to be absolutely horrendous for serving customers because they’re going to be behind closed doors or hidden under counters or above counters or however this legislation is going to work,” he said.

Change needed

Mike Daube from the Australian Council on Smoking and Health says there are always people who respond to change by saying the sky is going to fall in.

“It really is very simple, it’s working overseas, there’s a year to phase it in and retailers should be pleased to co-operate with something that will save the lives of many of their customers,” he said.

The hotel industry says it is committed to working within the new anti-smoking laws and has called for a strong public education campaign to ensure patrons understand the changes.

Bradley Woods from the Australian Hotels Association says there is likely to be some confusion amongst patrons until they get used to the idea of an outside smoking ban.

“We, as an industry, are going to be the most affected and regulated out of this, we don’t want to be smoke police in our own beer garden,” he said.

“We want people to go there to have a good time so we’re hoping customers get a strong understanding from Government.”

Copyright © 2009 Abc

A lawsuit against two tobacco companies went to the Helsinki Court of Appeals on Monday. The plaintiffs are two women who have smoked for a long time, and who are seeking damages from the Amer Group and the Finnish subsidiary of British-American Tobacco.

While some American victims of smoking-related diseases have managed to Finns have successfully sued tobacco companies for their smoking-related illnesses, this has not happened in Finland.

In the first phase of the lawsuit, Helsinki District Court found for the defendants, saying that the plaintiffs were aware of the dangers of smoking.

Court cases against tobacco companies have become a specialty of Erkki Aurejärvi, Professor Emeritus of Civil Law. Appearing on YLE’s morning television programme on Monday, Aurejärvi was very critical of the Finnish justice system, which he said is not capable of making important decisions.

“Courts in Finland do not make decisions which they fear might lead to something important”, Aurejärvi said on YLE.

Tobacco Industry Documents as Evidence

Aurejärvi has acquired documents from the tobacco industry, which came up during court trials in the United States. The documents focus on the risks linked with smoking.

The plaintiffs argue that tobacco companies have deliberately marketed their products to children. Aurejärvi says that cigarettes have contained additives to make smoking easy even for young children. The tobacco industry has developed additives that expand the bronchial tubes, making it easier for children to inhale smoke.

Aurejärvi also alleges that tobacco companies have deliberately tried to maximize nicotine addiction.

“It is science that has been practiced in laboratories behind closed doors since the 1950s.”

Deceptive Advertising of Light Cigarettes Alleged

The plaintiffs in the ongoing appeal are two smokers, one of whom suffers from emphysema and the other has lung cancer. They smoked light cigarettes, and a major issue in the case is whether or not the tobacco companies have engaged in deceptive marketing.

“Light cigarettes were marketed as light products. ‘You can smoke these with a good conscience’.” Auerjärvi notes that light cigarettes were created as an alternative to quitting cigarettes.

A decision in the case is expected next spring.

Copyright © 2009 Yle

It took three separate votes – not counting one on a separate amendment – Thursday morning for the Conroe City Council to pass an ordinance that bans smoking in all enclosed, public places.

It will go into effect 10 days after the vote, but enforcement will not begin until Jan. 1.

Council members also could approve an amendment that would prohibit smoking in private workplaces. City staff will work on a proposal and must bring it back to the council within 30 days for a vote.

The smoking ordinance has been discussed since Mayor Webb Melder brought up the subject in June. Council members fine-tuned it during Wednesday’s workshop. Changes included a complete ban in city parks and within 20 feet of an entrance, operable windows and ventilation systems that feed into enclosed public places.

The ordinance will be effective only within city limits, not its extraterritorial jurisdiction, City Attorney Marcus Winberry said.

For owners of restaurants and bars that will not be permitted to allow smoking indoors, that 20 feet could make the difference in the survival of their business.

“I’m not sure how a lot of people in strip centers are going to work with 20 feet,” said Jim Hallers, owner of Tailgators Pub and Grill at Texas 242 and Interstate 45. “I have a smoking patio on the side. If I have to put in a 20-foot rule … there would be no smoking on the patio. This city isn’t as big as Houston. We’re surrounded by unincorporated areas, and there’s no way that’s a level playing field.

“No doubt you’re going to create winners and losers.”

Councilman Jay Ross Martin expressed concerns about businesses having to put a patio for smokers 20 feet from the door.

“That’s kind of hard to do,” he said. “My goal is to not put anybody out of business.”

But one section of the ordinance already prohibits smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants only, Winberry said.

That section had not been discussed at Wednesday’s workshop meeting.

“Unless you modify this item, it’s going to be prohibited in those outdoor areas,” Winberry said. “If you delete item two (in the section), smoking will not be prohibited in those areas, then you could change it to make it 20 feet from the front entrance.”

He noted that allowing people to smoke within 20 feet of a restaurant’s front entrance only would “take the outdoor area away from the nonsmoker.”

“Do we want to allow smoking and nonsmoking to occur together in an outdoor area?” he asked.

Melder said he wanted to add language giving restaurants the option of having a nonsmoking area 20 feet from the entrance.

The first vote on the ordinance with the recommended changes brought a 2-2 tie, with Gentry and Porter voting for it and Martin and Councilman Toby Powell against it.

“I want to add all private workplaces (to the ordinance),” said Mayor Pro Tem Jerry Streater, who did not vote.

But Gentry asked that the ordinance be passed “as is,” with the option of allowing the council to come back and address any possible changes at a future time.

No one seconded Gentry’s motion.

“We want to pass a smoking ban,” Porter said. “We need to address Mr. Streater’s concern.”

“Would you like to make a motion?” Melder asked Streater.

“Only if we put a time limit on adding these (private workplaces), with a 30-day time limit,” Streater said.

He moved that the ordinance be accepted as presented, with an amendment to ban smoking in private workplaces and address the 20-foot rule at restaurants to be ready for council action within 30 days.

Council members approved the ordinance, as well as a separate motion by Powell to bring the amendment back to council in 30 days.

Such smoking bans in private workplaces have been enacted in several other cities, including Austin, said Gerald Treece, dean of the South Texas College of Law in Houston.

However, the courts have upheld those bans, “so long as you can go outside somewhere to smoke,” he said.

The vote disappointed several business owners, including Hallers.

“I can’t fathom the city of Conroe wanted a ban that would prohibit smoking on patios,” he said. “I’m not sure that was their intention. I don’t think they knew what their intention was.

“Why not wait two more weeks and do it right?”

Nancy McCoy, who is opening a cigar shop with her husband Mike in the same strip center where Hallers’ restaurant is located, said Conroe’s ordinance is much more restrictive than Houston’s.

The McCoys recently sold their cigar shop in downtown Houston.

“I’m just glad I have a chance to smoke in my cigar shop,” she said.

Imran Iqbal, president of the Greater Montgomery Restaurant Association, said while he believes the ordinance could have an impact on restaurants coming to Conroe, he is more worried about those already here.

“The restaurant association is backing a statewide ban so there’s a level playing field,” he said, “to avoid exactly what happened here.”

The city of Houston passed an ordinance in 2007 that prohibits smoking in enclosed public places, including restaurants and bars, and in enclosed workplaces that are public or private.

The Galveston City Council recently passed a ban on smoking in restaurants, bars, private clubs and tobacco shops. The ban takes effect Jan. 1.

Once the enforcement moratorium in Conroe is over by Jan. 1, violators will face a fine of up to $500, Winberry said. The ordinance allows for affirmative defenses for those smoking in retail tobacco shops, bingo halls with separate, enclosed areas for nonsmokers and in private clubs for organizations that are fraternal and nonprofit in nature.

Hotels will be allowed to allot up to 20 percent of their rooms for smokers.

Chrissie West, chairwoman of BreatheFree Conroe, said the organization is pleased with the council’s efforts.

“Our goal is 100 percent protection for employees,” she said. “We’re pleased they’re adding private workplaces, to let everyone be protected.”

In other business:

The council approved the tax rate for the 2009-10 fiscal year at 42 cents per $100,000 property valuation, the same rate as last year. The council also approved the 2009-10 budget at $90.95 million in gross expenditures, which was lowered because the city lowered its sales tax revenue projections for next year, Finance Director Steve Williams said.

“We’re essentially holding back supplemental requests to our budget until we can evaluate the first quarter to first half of the year (for sales tax revenues),” he said.

Copyright © 28 Aug, 2009 Hcnonline

Most American hospitals banned smoking almost two decades ago, but now many are extending the ban, prohibiting smoking on all hospital property and making their entire campuses smoke-free, a new survey reports.

Forty-five percent of accredited hospitals had smoke-free campuses by February 2008, according to the survey, although some facilities did not have control over remote areas like satellite parking lots. By the end of this year, well over half of the hospitals will have put such bans in place.

The survey was conducted by the Joint Commission, which accredits 80 percent of American hospitals.

The findings appear in the online version of the journal Tobacco Control.

The study’s author, Dr. Scott Williams, associate director of health service research with the Joint Commission, said he and his colleagues were surprised to find no clear geographic patterns or regional differences.

“You didn’t see tobacco states lagging way behind, or California leading the way,” Dr. Williams said. “In fact, all hospitals in North Carolina have smoke-free campuses.”

Dr. Williams added that hospitals had long considered hospitalizations “teachable moments” for some patients, and many offer smoking cessation after heart attacks or pneumonia.


Copyright © August 24, 2009 Nytimes

Hundreds of Turks have taken to the streets of Ankara to protest against a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants which was brought in last month.

Many of the protesters are cafe owners who say the ban is hurting trade and want smoking to be allowed in special areas of their establishments.

The government banned smoking in most enclosed public spaces in May last year and extended the ban last month.

Turkey has 20 million smokers but polls suggest most people support the ban.

Turkey aspires to become a member of the EU, and the ban brings the country into line with most EU countries.

Anyone caught lighting up in a designated smoke-free area faces a fine of 69 lira ($45; £28).

Bar owners who fail to enforce the ban could be fined from 560 lira for a first offence up to 5,600 lira.

On Tuesday about 1,000 protesters gathered in a park outside the health ministry buildings with brightly coloured banners daubed with slogans and, inevitably, many cigarettes.

“Don’t add a coffeehouse crisis to the economic crisis,” one banner read.

Other banners threatened that the party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a supporter of the ban, would suffer at the next election.

Copyright © 18 August 2009 BBC

Amsterdam, Netherlands – Smokers have found some friendly legislative ground in the Netherlands.

A series of district court decisions, one most recently handed down in July, has partially rolled back a 2008 smoking ban, allowing customers in thousands of small bars to once again light up at their barstools.

Removing ashtrays from bar counters has become standard practice in the West in recent years, as governments from both sides of the Atlantic seek to shield citizens from the health hazards of smoke.

The decisions were made in favor of a beloved Dutch institution, the “bruin cafe,” or brown bar.

Dutch cities are dotted with these hole-in-the-wall bars, often run by an individual or small group of owners who have no need to hire employees. They are engines of local gossip and connection. Popular lore has it that the “brown bar” moniker was earned due to walls stained by layers of tobacco smoke.

The legal reasoning behind lifting the ban was that, since these bars don’t have employees, no one is being involuntarily put at risk by exposure to smoke.

The government, meanwhile, has appealed to the Supreme Court.

An association representing these small bar owners isn’t resting on its laurels or waiting to find out the results of the Supreme Court case.

Instead, they’ve filed a class-action lawsuit against the department of health, saying the smoking ban – which they argue shifted customers to larger establishments – took money out of their pockets.

“They [the department] have to pay something,” says Ton Wurtz, spokesman for Red de Kleine Horeca-ondernemer, an association of 1,200 small bars that is fighting the smoking ban. He says current rulings show the law was illegal and that compensation should be forthcoming.

No Exceptions

The Netherlands has long had a law banning workplace smoking on its books. But that law made an exception for bars and restaurants – until July 2008. That’s when health minister Ab Klink issued new regulations that toughened standards while leaving room for establishments to keep their smoking customers happy: They’d be allowed to have smoking sections, as long as they were fully enclosed and separated from a nonsmoking area.

It was that decision that got the brown bars’ backs up.

While larger, better capitalized bars adapted to the new law with extensive enclosures – one organization even set up an award to recognize the “most attractive” smoking rooms – the tiny bar owners didn’t have the capital, and certainly not the room, to expand. Their customer base started to abandon them, they say.

Then, two brown bars – Cafe Victoria in Breda and De Kachel in Groningen, a college town in the north of the country – beat the ban with separate court cases that were upheld on appeal in different appeals courts on the grounds that the law unfairly targeted smaller businesses.

“The appeals court … there is no juridical basis to forbid smoking in one-man bars,” concedes Evert Boerstra, a spokesperson for the public prosecutor in The Hague.

For now, the health ministry is leaving the little bars alone, hoping for a Supreme Court decision in its favor or, perhaps, new legislative solutions to extend its control over public smoking.
Copyright © 2009 Csmonitor

PHOENIX — State legislators and the governor acted illegally in taking $7 million from a 2006 tobacco-tax initiative to balance the state budget, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday.
The justices rejected arguments that lawmakers are free to reallocate investment and interest income from the money raised by the tax as long as they do not touch the tax revenues themselves.
Justice Michael Ryan, writing for the unanimous court, said the legislators, and the governor who signed the measure taking the money, are wrong.
He said voters, in approving the 80-cent-a-pack hike in tobacco taxes for the First Things First program, specifically wanted all the proceeds earmarked to improve early childhood development. Ryan said the measure specifically gives the board charged with handing out the cash authority over any interest on funds received but not yet allocated.
Ryan said a 1998 constitutional amendment bars legislators from altering what voters have approved. He said the only exception is when a new law “furthers the purpose” of the original measure, and then only if approved by three-fourths of both the House and Senate.
He said the raid on the funds to balance the budget did not further the underlying purpose of the initiative, which is to establish new programs for early childhood health and education. And even if it did, the justice continued, the Arizona Constitution allows such changes only on a three-fourths vote of both the House and Senate; this measure passed the House on a 34-22 margin with a 16-12 Senate vote.
House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said he was disappointed by the ruling, saying it complicates efforts by lawmakers to fund basic services as other sources of revenues are declining.
“Now $7 million isn’t a lot in the grand scheme of things,” he said. “But when you look at what we are having to cobble together, $5 million here, $7 million there, $4 million there, all of it adds up. And all of it matters at this point.”
Adams said this legal fight highlights the flaws in the 1998 constitutional amendment making voter-approved spending mandates off-limits, an amendment he said needs to be repealed or altered.
Adams said the new tobacco tax has raised about $400 million since being implemented. At the same time, lawmakers are trying to bridge what currently is a $3 billion gap between revenues and expenses.
“We have an overall concern with how this $400 million is being spent at a time when Arizona is facing the worst fiscal crisis in our history, and we’re struggling to meet the financial requirements for basic state services,” he said. In times of need, lawmakers should be able to divert the dollars which now go for special new programs for youngsters to instead fund essential health care and education, he said.
But Liz Barker Alvarez, spokeswoman for First Things First, rejected Adams’ premise.
“We consider investment in programs and services that ensure that Arizona’s children get to school healthy and ready to succeed to be a necessity, not a nicety,” she said.
Alvarez said her organization recognizes the state’s “unprecedented fiscal crisis resulting in significant budget cuts across services that affect children and families.” But she said the money raised by the tobacco tax is being used to deal with the needs of individual communities.
The dispute stems from a discovery by lawmakers in late January that there wasn’t enough money to support the $9.9 billion spending plan
Legislative budget adjustments did not touch the actual revenues from the new tobacco tax, which raises about $150 million a year. Instead they took the estimated $7 million in interest the fund accumulated while the newly formed Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board decided how to spend the money.
Ryan said the move ignores the language of the initiative, which specifically promised to fund early childhood health and education programs, language he said that sought to shield the money raised from being reallocated by the Legislature.
That broad language, he continued, clearly gives the board control of not just the taxes themselves but any interest.
Gov. Jan Brewer was more accepting of Friday’s ruling than Adams.
“The governor has been very open about her distaste of fund sweeps,” said Paul Senseman, her press aide, even though she signed the legislation authorizing the sweep.
Friday’s ruling is the latest in a series of legal defeats for lawmakers in their efforts to tap other funds to balance the budget.
Earlier this month a Maricopa County Superior Court judge said it was wrong for lawmakers last year to seize assessments that farmers had imposed on themselves for specific research and marketing programs.
The Arizona Supreme Court ruled in February that it was illegal to demand cities and counties give up more than $29.7 million.
And last month another Maricopa County judge issued a restraining order blocking the state from taking $4.7 million from accounts of the Industrial Commission, at least temporarily. But there has been no final ruling on whether the raid was illegal.

Since 1910, the goal of Community Hospital of San Bernardino has been to heal the sick.

These days, the hospital on Medical Center Drive is also focused on keeping its employees healthy.

In keeping with that wellness campaign, as of Tuesday the entire facility is now tobacco-free.

“We have wanted to do this for a long time, to send a positive message to employees and the public that this is something everyone can do to improve their health,” said hospital spokeswoman Tobey Robertson.

A tobacco-free campus involves eliminating the designated smoking areas and banning the use of cigarettes, cigars, pipes and smokeless tobacco.

Employees cannot even smoke in their cars anymore, said Robertson.

For years, the hospital has offered health and education programs on such topics as healthy eating and managing diabetes to the public.

Recently, it stepped up wellness initiatives for its employees including yoga classes, an employee gym, bike club, walking path and now the tobacco-free campus.

All have been well-received.

Employees who ride their bikes, anywhere from three to nine miles every day at lunchtime, describe it as a great escape from the workday.

“It’s a time to re-evaluate and a great way to get energized,” said plant operations manager Mike Bettencourt, as he and other cyclists gathered in front of the hospital.

While fellow cyclist and nurse educator Elsa Mena said the cycling helps to keep her weight down.

On Tuesday, the first day marking a tobacco-free campus, employees gathered in the cafeteria to get free chair massages.

Carmen Cabrera, manager of employee health services, spent a portion of the day passing out information on how to quit smoking.

“First of all we are bringing the information to them and showing them the options available to stop,” she said. “Then we are providing support.”

Raymond Putric, maintenance engineer at the hospital, said July 15 is his personal day to stop smoking.

“At first, I was resistant to this new hospital-wide initiative,” he said. “Then I realized the benefits; it enabled me to do something I’d been wanting to do for a longtime – quit smoking.”
Copyright © 2009 Sbsun

All display and advertising of tobacco products in shops or stares is prohibited from today under strict new tobacco laws aimed at cutting smoking rates.

Cigarette and tovacco vending machines are also being manned in all premises except bars and licensed clubs, where customers will have to purchase cigarettes a token in order to use the machine.

The Government hopes the move will help prevent teenagers from getting access to cigarettes.

President Barack Obama today signed into law an anti-smoking bill that gives the FDA greater power to regulate tobacco.

“More than 400,000 Americans now die of tobacco-related illnesses each year,” said Obama. “More than 8 million Americans suffer from at least one serious illness caused by smoking.”

Standing in the Rose Garden with a number of lawmakers and other guests, Obama declared: “It is a law that will save American lives.”

Obama himself has struggled to quit smoking. He acknowledged in his comments how difficult it can be to quit the habit.

“Today, change has come to Washington,” said Obama. “This legislation is a victory for bipartisanship.”

Copyright © 2009 Necn

The Polk County Health Department has announced it is the recipient of a $210,000 Community-Based Tobacco Prevention Interventions Grant.

The department applied for the grant to maintain a stand-alone tobacco-free partnership that will mobilize the community to establish policies supporting long-term, social norm change.

“This project’s title is called Tobacco-Free Polk,” said Jennifer Tempel, tobacco-prevention specialist. “It is intended to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use among youth, adults and pregnant women; reduce per-capita tobacco consumption; reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and reduce tobacco-related disparities in Polk County.”

The health department will serve as the lead agency for this project, developing and implementing contracts with community partners for the purpose of accomplishing the goals, objectives, and activities for this grant.

*
County officials say the 2009-2010 Tobacco-Free Polk goals include:

• Prevent initiation of tobacco use among youth and young adults.

• Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke exposure.

• Promote cessation from tobacco use.

• Infrastructure.

As part of these goals, the department currently is serving as the Tobacco Free Partnership’s lead agency, providing logistical, administrative and organizational support.

The mission of the Tobacco-Free Partnership of Polk County is to form community partnerships with individuals and organizations to educate and serve the citizens of Polk County regarding tobacco use prevention, intervention, and cessation.

The next public Tobacco-Free Partnership Meeting is set for June 23, starting at 9 a.m. at Family Fundamentals, 1021 Lakeland Hills Blvd., Lakeland. At this meeting, the health department will explain goals and objectives of this project as well as discussing scheduling for future meetings and events.

For more information, contact Tempel at (863) 519-7900, extension 1054.
© Lakewalesnews

After more than a decade of debate, Congress is poised to approve the most sweeping effort ever to regulate tobacco products.

The Senate could pass a bipartisan bill as early as today that would require larger health warnings on cigarette packs, ban candy flavorings, ban the use of claims such as “light,” “mild” and “low tar,” and further restrict tobacco advertising.

On Monday, the Senate voted to end debate, a crucial step toward passage. In April, the House approved a similar bill giving the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to regulate tobacco. President Obama, who has struggled to quit smoking, has said he’ll sign the legislation.

“It’s historic in that we’re finally saying tobacco needs to be regulated,” said Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, who co-authored a bill in 1990 to ban smoking on airplanes. He said the bill will save millions of lives and protect children, but he lamented that “it breaks my heart it took us 20 years.”

In 1998, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona pushed a bill to give the FDA such authority, but he was thwarted by a well-financed tobacco lobby.

The powerful tobacco industry has long resisted regulation, but its grip has been weakening, said co-author Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, who first sought such a step in the 1980s. Since 1994, when tobacco executives told his Energy and Commerce Committee that nicotine was not addictive, public attitudes and laws have changed dramatically, he said.

More than two dozen states have passed comprehensive laws to ban smoking in public places and most have raised tobacco taxes.

Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest cigarette maker, embraced regulation. Spokesman Bill Phelps said the company, maker of Marlboros, hopes it will be a “framework to pursue tobacco products that are less harmful than conventional cigarettes.”

The second and third largest tobacco makers, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard, oppose the bill. They argue that its advertising restrictions will lock in Philip Morris’ market advantage.

“It will have competitive consequences,” said Tommy Payne, executive vice president of R.J. Reynolds, maker of Camels.

North Carolina’s senators, Republican Richard Burr and Democrat Kay Hagan, oppose the bill. They say it would burden the FDA and hurt farmers in their state, who grow the most tobacco in the nation.

More senators spoke in the bill’s favor, as some talked about deceased parents or showed posters of cancer patients.

Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey recalled his own turning point.

“One night after dinner, my third daughter, who was about 7 or 8, said, ‘Daddy, why are you smoking?’ I said, ‘Well, because it makes me feel relaxed.’ ”

His daughter said she learned in school that smoking leads to a “black box in your throat.” Within days, he said, he smoked his last cigarette.

Major health groups back the bill, including the American Lung Association, the American Heart Association and the American Cancer Society.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids says tobacco use remains the nation’s top cause of preventable death, killing more than 400,000 Americans and costing $96 million in health care bills each year.

“We’re a long way from solving the problem,” said Matt Myers, the group’s president. He said that although a much smaller share of Americans are smoking now than in 1965, when the surgeon general issued a report linking smoking to lung cancer, the number dying from tobacco use hasn’t changed.

The Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act will require tobacco companies to disclose detailed information about their products’ ingredients and will allow the FDA to require changes to protect public health.

“If done right,” the bill could save millions of lives, said Greg Connolly of Harvard University’s School of Public Health. He supports it but has “very, very serious concerns.” He fears the FDA may do Philip Morris’ bidding and focus on finding a “safer cigarette.” Instead, he said, it should focus on reducing tobacco use.

“The critical issue,” he said, “is what route the FDA will take.”

Copyright © 2009 Usatoday

China’s discipline watchdog will start a joint campaign with the Chinese Association of Tobacco Control (CACT) to ban government officials from purchasing tobacco using public funds, according to a spokeswoman who spoke with Xinhua Thursday.

Zhang Jing, a publicity officer with the CACT, said that the Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI) proposed the campaign last week.

“They (CCDI) phoned us last week. They are taking very active interests in such a joint campaign,” said Zhang who, however, insisted that a specific timetable was not immediately available.

Phone calls to the CCDI office in charge of the campaign were unanswered as of Thursday afternoon.

Cigarettes are usually presented as gifts in China. But the thin tube of paper filled with finely cut tobacco has led to a number of government scandals in the past year.

Zhou Jiugeng was the former director of the real estate management bureau in Jiangning District of Nanjing in the eastern Jiangsu Province.

Dubbed the “super-expensive-cigarette director,” Zhou was removed from his post on suspicion of embezzling public funds to pursue a luxurious lifestyle, after photos uploaded by Internet users showed a pack of Nanjing 95 Imperial cigarettes sitting in front of him. The cigarettes cost about 150 yuan (about $22) per pack.

He was also found to be wearing a Vacheron Constantin watch, which costs at least 100,000 yuan in China, and driving a Cadillac to work.

In another case, the Gongan county in central Hubei province was reported in early May to have encouraged government employees to smoke more than 230,000 packs of locally produced cigarettes a year. Departments whose officials failed to meet their respective quota would be fined, according to the county’s regulations.

The county later overturned the regulations following wide media coverage.

According to Zhang, similar practices were carried out by many government authorities across China since 2006.

“Previously, our main initiative was to reduce the consumption of low-end cigarettes by campaigning to raise the tobacco tax,” Zhang said.

“Now, we are looking to cut down demand for high-end cigarettes by banning officials to buy them with public funds.”

The campaign may also help fight corruption among Chinese government, she added.

However, some viewed the CCDI’s new initiative as “disoriented.”

Shi Yanping, an Internet critic mocked fighting corruption by banning cigarette purchases to be “like scratching your feet when wearing a pair of thick boots.”

“The core of the anti-corruption work should be the cultivation of honesty and integrity of the officials,” he said.

Copyright © 2009 Chinadaily

Mississippi leaders have taken an important step to protect the state’s kids and taxpayers from the devastating toll of tobacco by increasing the state cigarette tax for the first time since 1985. The 50-cent increase, to 68 cents per pack, is a win-win-win solution for Mississippi — a health win that will reduce tobacco use and save lives, a financial win that will raise much-needed revenue and reduce tobacco-caused health care costs, and a political win that is popular with voters. However, at 68 cents per pack, Mississippi’s cigarette tax will still be well below the state average of $1.24 per pack, so Mississippi’s leaders can achieve even greater health and financial benefits by further increasing tobacco taxes.

We applaud the legislators who took a stand to protect the health and pocketbooks of Mississippi families and congratulate the many organizations that advocated for the cigarette tax increase for their tireless efforts to improve Mississippians’ health.

The evidence is clear that increasing the cigarette tax is one of the most effective ways to reduce smoking, especially among kids. Studies show that every 10 percent increase in the price of cigarettes reduces youth smoking by 7 percent and overall cigarette consumption by about 4 percent. Mississippi can expect a 50-cent-per-pack cigarette tax increase to prevent some 16,000 Mississippi kids alive today from becoming smokers, spur 9,700 Mississippi smokers to quit for good, save 7,600 Mississippi residents from smoking-caused deaths, produce $372 million in long-term health care savings, and raise $94 million a year in new revenue.

In addition to further increasing state tobacco taxes, Mississippi leaders should also use some of the tobacco tax revenue to increase funding for the state’s tobacco prevention and cessation program. Mississippi once had one of the nation’s most effective tobacco prevention programs, but has yet to restore funding after 2006 budget cuts. Mississippi currently spends $10.7 million a year on tobacco prevention programs, which is just 27.3 percent of the $39.2 million recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in Mississippi, claiming 4,700 lives each year and costing the state $719 million annually in health care bills, including $264 million in Medicaid payments alone. Government expenditures related to tobacco amount to a hidden tax of $559 each year on every Mississippi household. In addition, more than 19 percent of Mississippi high school students currently smoke, 14,100 Mississippi kids try smoking for the first time each year, and 4,200 more kids become regular smokers every year.

Counting the Mississippi increase and a cigarette tax increase awaiting the governor’s signature in Florida, the average state cigarette tax would be $1.27 per pack. Rhode Island has the highest state cigarette tax at $3.46 per pack. Twelve states and the District of Columbia have cigarette tax rates of at least $2 per pack, and 27 states and DC would have cigarette tax rates of at least $1 per pack or more.

Copyright © 2009 Tobaccofreekids

Patrick Henry’s Grill and Pub in East Richmond has a smoking area downstairs, but no smoking in the upstairs dining area. Owner Eric Warner recently prohibited smoking in the entire restaurant until after 9 p.m.

With a new law going into effect in Virginia in December that puts more restrictions on, but does not entirely ban, smoking in restaurants, Warner said he’s likely to make his restaurant smoke-free, despite his concerns about how some customers might react.

“I will be happy to go nonsmoking completely, but I don’t know if all my patrons will be,” he said. “I know it is nonsmoking even in Paris now, but we are in tobacco country here.”

Warner and many other local restaurateurs are grappling with the potential financial impact of the new law. Some no-smoking experiments here and changes in laws elsewhere offer insight into how the new law could affect the bottom line. Meanwhile, the hospitality industry expects the law to essentially ban smoking in most eateries. The law prohibits smoking in restaurants unless there is a smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from nonsmoking areas. However, it exempts private clubs such as lodges, and nonenclosed outdoor areas of eateries.

The Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association opposed the smoking legislation, which the General Assembly approved in February and Gov. Timothy M. Kaine signed in March. The industry group argued that the law would put unnecessary regulatory burdens on restaurants, many of which are going smoke-free voluntarily.

About 60 percent of the state’s full-service restaurants already are smoke-free, according to statistics compiled by the Virginia Department of Health from restaurant inspections. Statistics for Richmond, Henrico County and Chesterfield County show 58 percent, 71 percent and 57 percent of restaurants smoke-free, respectively.

Chris Ripp, owner of Can Can restaurant in Carytown, said the restaurant recently went smoke-free mostly because of customer demand. Ripp said he does expect to see some impact on sales, at least initially, but based on input from customers he believes a no-smoking policy will ultimately draw more patrons.

“Definitely short term, you are going to lose bar sales,” from banning smoking, he said. “But long term we are going to gain back those dollars in the dining room.”

. . .

Supporters of public smoking bans point to numerous studies, many of them conducted by public health groups or agencies, indicating little or no impact on sales and employment at restaurants or clubs, and even a positive impact over time. Opponents say the studies don’t capture the whole picture, and that some restaurants are hurt by smoking bans, especially small operations that cater to smokers.

“Even if [the economic impact] is only for a short period of time, why would the General Assembly have passed this legislation in this economic environment?” asked J. Glynn Loope, a lobbyist for a trade group of cigar sellers in Virginia.

Business groups in some states that have adopted similar smoking laws say it doesn’t necessarily mean lost business, as long as the law applies equally to businesses across the state.

Walt Hazard, president of the Tennessee Hospitality Association, said overall sales have not been hurt by that state’s law, adopted in 2007, that prohibited smoking in any restaurants that serves or employs people under the age of 21.

While a few went to an over-21 rule, “most [restaurants] just converted to smoke-free,” he said. The sales impact “was insignificant because it was statewide, and every business was having to follow the same set of rules everywhere.”

A similar dynamic occurred in Georgia after the state adopted a smoking law for restaurants in 2005 unless they don’t serve minors. The state’s restaurant association supported the change.

“We were suffering from a proliferation of local jurisdiction bans that were in some cases contradictory,” said Ron Wolf, the association’s president. “We supported the [statewide law] because we felt at the very least it would level the playing field in Georgia. Everybody would be operating by the same rules.”

“Before the ban we received an awful lot of outcry,” from business owners and smokers, he said. “Once the ban went into effect, that literally dwindled to nothing. It is a pretty good indication that it has had minimal if any adverse impact on business.”

. . .

Some local restaurants that have gone smoke-free voluntarily say they do not regret the decision. At the Smokey Pig, an Ashland barbecue restaurant that barred smoking more than a year ago, co-owner Michael Pyle said it is difficult to quantify the effect on sales.

“My sales are down like everybody else at this point,” he said. “I am not attributing any of that to our smoke-free policy. I think that is economic.”

Customer comments indicate the policy has had a more positive impact, he said.

“I will say that for every one person that has given a negative comment, I have gotten three to five telling me how wonderful it is,” he said. “As far as I am concerned it was a good decision.” Some customers, as well as staff, go outside to smoke now, he said.

Merrell Wreden, a spokesman for Hanover County-based AMF Bowling, which operates bowling centers in Virginia and other states, said smoking bans have had temporary effects on patronage elsewhere. “The way it worked for us when the first smoking ban went into effect in California several years ago was our business was off immediately about 20 percent,” he said.

“That was sort of a combination of league bowlers, who at that time I think had a higher incidence of smokers than the general population, and also people who would go to our bar and hang out after bowling.”

“It took a while, but the business recovered,” Wreden said. “What happened in every state since then, there has usually been some effect on the business, but each time it seems to be less and the recovery time is shorter.”

“My impression is that the incidence of smoking generally is down,” he said. “We still get a lot of requests for nonsmoking from families and other people, and frankly I think at this point that smokers are so used to having restricted access to smoking in public places, they just go outside or don’t smoke while in the building.”

Two of the company’s bowling centers in the Richmond area have had no-smoking policies for more than two years, and “the reaction has been very positive,” he said.

. . .

Some restaurant owners and industry officials say the law likely amounts to a de-facto ban on indoor smoking in eateries, because it is unlikely that many business owners will try to install separate smoking rooms and ventilation, especially in a down economy.

“The majority of people are not going to do it, because they can’t afford it,” said Megan Svajda, director of government relations for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association. “Once the economy turns around, maybe they will start thinking about it. Right now the majority of restaurants do not have the funds necessary to pay for these modifications to their restaurants.”

Wreden, of AMF Bowling, said the company has no plans to have separate smoking rooms. “We would just have no smoking,” he said.

Svajda said the Hospitality and Travel Association will provide information to restaurants considering putting in separate rooms with ventilation, though it is hard to say how much it would cost for a typical restaurant to do.

“It is hard to quantify how much it is going to cost,” she said. “That would be determined by what kind of products [a restaurant] is using for ventilation, and where you are located in the state, and the size of your operation.”

Another option for restaurants that want to keep smoking would be to become a private club, but that seems impractical for many restaurants, she said. “You would have to have a charter, with an elected board,” she said.

Copyright © 2009 Timesdispatch

RALEIGH The state Senate voted Thursday to ban smoking in bars and restaurants in North Carolina, setting the stage for what would be a historic prohibition of a product that created thousands of jobs, built Duke and Wake Forest universities and has long been an integral part of the culture in the nation’s top tobacco-producing state.

House members passed a tougher version last month, meaning that lawmakers will still have to work out a compromise, assuming the Senate passes the measure in a second vote Monday. The bill passed Thursday by an eight-vote margin, 26-18.

The state’s tobacco interests conceded Thursday that change is coming.

“It’s inevitable,” said Tommy Bunn, president of the Raleigh-based U.S. Tobacco Cooperative, a farmer-owned grower, purchaser and manufacturer. “Historically, it’s a big deal because of all the support the state has received from tobacco.”

Many restaurants already prohibit smoking, but the Senate’s ban would end the days of the smoke-filled bar.

A ban would be bad for business, said Kevin Smith, manager of The Graduate Food & Pub in Charlotte. “Do you know how many people smoke a cigarette when they drink a beer?”

He estimated 60 percent of his customers smoke.

Mellow Mushroom pizza owner Kent Hodges, in Raleigh, said a state-mandated ban would be a relief. He can defuse loyal but angry customers by blaming the change on the legislature.

“I don’t think it’ll affect business,” Hodges said. “Maybe at some of the bars, but we won’t even notice it.”

Legislators are hammering out the smoking ban at the same time that they’re writing a state budget for next year that is expected to put a higher tax on each pack of cigarettes, as much as $1 per pack if Gov. Bev Perdue gets her way. Congress already tacked on another 62 cents per pack, one of the few politically palatable tax increases.

Tobacco’s lingering roots in the state emerged in the Senate debate as critics of the ban stood up from both parties, deriding the bill as a government intrusion, questioning the science behind health claims, and waging a bit of class warfare.

“If you object to (smoking in a restaurant), don’t go to that place of business,” said Sen. David Weinstein, a Lumberton Democrat. “We don’t need the state to get involved in every aspect of a business.”

Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger of Eden said the public has “the right and ability to decide.”

The ban’s advocates recited health care costs from secondhand smoke. They questioned why the state would require a restaurant to provide a safe building through fire safety equipment and safe food through health inspections but not clean air to breathe.

“Secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States,” said Sen. Bill Purcell, a Laurinburg Democrat and retired physician.

The measure passed earlier by the House would ban smoking in all workplaces, as well as restaurants. The Senate bill exempts private clubs, such as country clubs, which drew scorn from both sides of the aisle.

“Mr. High Flying Executive, who got bonus money out of the bailout, can go to the country club and do what he wants,” said Republican Sen. David Rouzer of Johnston County.

Meanwhile, working-class bar customers will no longer be able to go there and smoke, said Sen. Doug Berger, a Democrat from Youngsville.

Smith, owner of The Graduate in Charlotte, has already thought through how he will handle the expected ban after the legislature passes it.

“I’ll build a patio,” he said.

Smoking would be prohibited in restaurants, taverns and virtually all workplaces in Wisconsin starting in July 2010, under a compromise announced Wednesday by state lawmakers.

After years of debate, legislative leaders said they reached a deal on a statewide smoking ban that could pass both houses next week and be signed into law by Gov. Jim Doyle.

The announcement came after lawmakers brokered a compromise between advocates for a strict ban and the Tavern League, a powerful lobbying group that has opposed a statewide ban in the past.

Bill supporters agreed to delay implementation until July 5, 2010, so that bars would have time to prepare for the change. They also agreed to exempt the handful of existing cigar bars and all tobacco retail shops. In addition, the ban would not apply to Wisconsin casinos because the Native American tribes that run them are sovereign nations.

Virtually all other workplaces, including bowling alleys, factories and restaurants, would be required to go smoke-free. Hotels also would not be allowed to have any rooms with smoking allowed. Restaurant and bar owners still could set up smoking areas outside their businesses.

The plan would replace the patchwork of local ordinances restricting smoking that have been passed in dozens of communities across the state. Cities such as Madison, Appleton and Eau Claire already havebanned smoking in all workplaces, and other communities have more limited restrictions.

Wisconsin would be the 26th state to ban smoking in all bars and restaurants, advocates say. Three of its neighboring states — Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota — already have approved bans.

Smokers who violate the ban would be fined between $100 and $250. Bar owners would not be fined as long as they take steps to prevent smoking in their establishments.

Tavern League President Rob Swearingen credited Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Waunakee, with negotiating a deal that was “palatable” to his group and those pushing for a stricter ban. He said the delayed implementation was critical so the economy could turn around before some bar owners would be faced with a potential loss of income.

“This will be an adjustment to my members, and when I talk about my members, I talk about the 5,000 mom-and-pop taverns across the state of Wisconsin,” he said at a news conference. “We are hoping it will not be too much of a hardship on them.”

Doyle had included a smoking ban in his state budget proposal but lawmakers thought it should be debated on its own and held public hearings on separate bills this week.

Erpenbach said Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, who had been sympathetic to concerns raised by the Tavern League in the past, pushed for a compromise so the Senate could pass it next week.

In turn, Erpenbach hammered out the deal with lawmakers and groups ranging from the Tavern League to the American Cancer Society.

Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan, D-Janesville, said he expected the bill to pass his chamber with bipartisan support. Doyle released a statement saying he was pleased with the deal but stopped short of promising to sign it.

Supporters of a strict ban, including Senate President Fred Risser, D-Madison, said they wished it would be implemented before next July but were pleased with the deal.

“In my opinion, the bill still meets its main objectives: a statewide smoking ban for all Wisconsin workplaces, including all bars and restaurants, and no special phase-ins for any group,” Risser said. “As soon as this bill takes effect, it will start saving lives of our citizens and saving money for our taxpayers.”

A pending crisis cast a pall over the Legislature as it limped to a close Monday night: Would the session adjourn without appropriating money for a tobacco program voters had mandated? And would that send the issue to court?

In the end, a meeting between Senate Majority Leader Bob Stenehjem, R-Bismarck, and Measure 3 Chairwoman Heidi Heitkamp ended the weekslong stalemate and the threat of a court fight.

“The broker here was Bob,” Heitkamp said Tuesday. “I don’t know how you could say it any other way.”

Stenehjem asked Heitkamp and other Measure 3 supporters to a meeting in his office Monday evening. They agreed on bill language stating the tobacco control program wouldn’t be able to tap into the state Water Resources Trust Fund for its money – a possibility skeptical lawmakers said lurked in the measure.

In return, legislators would appropriate money for the tobacco program just as voters directed in November. Money had been in limbo since the House killed a bill April 9. The Senate approved it unanimously in February.

After Stenehjem and Heitkamp reached agreement, he made sure his Republican senators were on board to pass tobacco funding again.

“It’s the prudent thing to do. It is the law,” he told them in a caucus meeting. “This addresses our concerns.”

The Senate met, and for the second time in less than three months, passed the tobacco funding 46-0.

But Stenehjem expected the House to reject it and that the session would extend into Tuesday, its 80th day.

But the House accepted it.

House Majority Leader Al Carlson called Republican House members together about 10:30 p.m. after he met with Gov. John Hoeven, Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem and Bob Stenehjem.

Carlson asked them to support the new amendment and that worries about water funds being used for tobacco programs were taken care of.

Even so, he told them, “This isn’t something that’s easy to swallow after three weeks of trying to fix it. We fixed it a little bit.”

Some House members still resisted.

“I’d like to see them (Measure 3 officials) come down here and see us face to face,” demanded Rep. Jim Kasper, R-Fargo.

Rep. Jon Nelson, R-Rugby, said, “The Senate passed this amendment without any opposition, on a voice vote. From a practical standpoint, we can turn it down, but then, what’s our next step?”

Though Carlson resisted passing the tobacco funding as dictated by Measure 3 and even said voters didn’t know what they were voting on, he warned his caucus members that they risked political death to adjourn without funding a program voters had approved.

“I don’t know how you’re going to respond to the voters when they say, ‘You didn’t listen to us,’ ” he told them.

Hoeven said he warned Carlson of the same threat.

“The Legislature has to pass something to appropriate the funds to get the initiated measure into effect because that’s what the people voted for,” Hoeven said after the session adjourned.

Heitkamp, a former attorney general and one-time candidate for governor, credits Hoeven for stepping in.

“I think the governor’s intervention finally got their attention that this was not good public policy and not particularly good politics (to not fund Measure 3),” she said of the man who had bested her in the 2000 governor’s race.

But Carlson said Tuesday that wasn’t the case, “not a bit.” He said assurances from Wayne Stenehjem made the difference, not Hoeven’s entreaties.

The attorney general, who is Bob Stenehjem’s brother, assured Carlson the tobacco program couldn’t use water funds if the House passed the Heitkamp-Bob Stenehjem amendment and that the tobacco program must abide by other accountability requirements.

Wayne Stenehjem said Tuesday that he warned Carlson “it would be hard to sell to a court if the Legislature did nothing.”

The attorney general said he had been as pessimistic as anyone that time would run out to fund the tobacco measure.

After years of failed attempts by supporters, a tough statewide smoking ban could be headed to Gov. Jim Doyle’s desk as early as next week.

The bill, which would end smoking in bars and restaurants in Wisconsin, could be taken up by both the state Assembly and Senate as early as May 13.

In a burst of action, senators held a hearing on the bill Tuesday and an Assembly committee is scheduled to hold a hearing today, with votes expected by both committees later this week.

“It’s very exciting,” said Marilyn Townsend, a village of Shorewood Hills trustee who lost both of her parents to smoking-related illnesses. “There are many people who are trying to quit, and this would help them.”

Townsend was one of dozens who showed up to testify both for and against a ban on Tuesday, with advocates arguing it would save both lives and health-care costs. Tavern and tobacco store owners argued the ban would crush their livelihoods. Outside the hearing room, both sides searched for a compromise that could clear the Legislature.

As it now stands, the bill is identical to one that Doyle, also a ban supporter, inserted into the state budget. The proposal would ban smoking in almost every workplace, with exceptions for people who live in assisted living facilities and for hotels, which could designate one-quarter of their rooms as available for smoking. The bill would allow two months to implement the ban.

Chris Marsicano, co-owner of the Village Supper Club in Delavan, said that with the weak economy, sales are already down at a business that has been in his family for 44 years.

“We’re just afraid that with the imposition of a smoking ban, we’re accelerating that,” said Marsicano, a regional vice president for the Tavern League of Wisconsin.

Scott Stenger, a lobbyist for the Tavern League, said the group wants several changes: at least a year for implementation, protection of outdoor smoking areas from local ordinances, and lower fines than the current bill. It calls for fines of $25 to $50 for the first violation, $50 to $100 for the second and $100 to $250 for third and additional violations.

But Sen. Fred. Risser, D-Madison, a co-author of the bill, said state government and Wisconsin businesses pay enormous health-care costs because of smoking and a smoking ban shouldn’t face further delay. “The time has come now to provide a healthy environment for our workers and patrons alike,” he said.

The bill resurrects a familiar argument for local residents — whether to provide an exemption for cigar bars or tobacco shops — as the city of Madison ultimately did after passing its smoking ordinance in 2005. Jeff Steinbock, owner of Uhle Tobacco Co., said his long-time Milwaukee business could shut down if an exemption isn’t provided.

“Nobody expects a smoke-free environment when they enter a tobacco shop or a cigar shop,” Steinbock said.

© Copyright: Madison

Bar owners are warning of a massive drop in numbers of a customer as a new anti-tobacco law comes into effect today.

Local media have reported bar owners fear they could lose as much as 50 %  of their customers as new laws mean that people will only be able to smoke in specially designated rooms in bars and restaurants or on terraces.

Media said hardly any owners bars have prepared or built special rooms for smokers.