Moves to ban all smoking on hospital premises faltered yesterday when the Southern District Health Board voted against smoke-free mental health services.

The board had been asked to endorse implementing its smoke-free policy for mental health services and facilities, following a lengthy discussion at its hospitals advisory committee meeting, but yesterday the board vote was lost on voices.

Member Richard Thomson, who has spoken out repeatedly about the move to have mental health patients not permitted to leave hospital premises banned from smoking, indicated at the start of the debate he did not expect to win the argument. He said he could not vote for forced treatment for a group of people who had not asked for it. “That is a very significant step to take.”

His research had showed it was not an effective way of getting patients to stop smoking and could put patients off seeking the treatment they needed He referred to an email he had received from a person with a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia who said he refused to access health care because of the ” totalitarian anti-choice regime in psychiatric hospitals”.

Patients at Wakari Hospital’s 9A and 9B wards can light up in a grassed courtyard.

Chief executive Brian Rousseau said he had sympathy for both sides of the argument but the board ran the risk of ” becoming too ideological” at times in its policy implementation.

Nobody could convince him that a terminal lung cancer patient who had been a chain smoker for 50 years should be stopped from smoking in the last weeks of their life.

That would not be ” humane or sensible”.

The board should be saying, “This is our policy. However, there are some valid exceptions. My view is this would be one.”

Balclutha GP Dr Branko Sijnja, who asked that his vote in favour of implementing the policy be recorded, said there was plenty of evidence about the harm of smoking and the board needed to be consistent about the message it was giving.

He said he appreciated the fact some patients were confined, but the board still needed to make a stand as the provider of health services.

Chairman Errol Millar noted that prisons were to be made smoke-free.

Mr Thomson said he did not particularly agree with that either, but there was more justification because those who had committed a crime had sanctions imposed on them by society.

Members Katie O’Connor, Peter Barron, Helen Algar, Kaye Crowther and Louise Carr all spoke in support of a policy with flexibility.

A new round of strict anti-smoking laws come into effect in September, but authorities are already looking at implementing even stricter measures to target smokers.

The next step could be forcing addicts to get their cigarettes on prescription, said Western Australia’s first Director General of Health and prominent anti-smoking advocate, Mike Daube.

Laws passed by the state government last year, which come into effect on September 22, have tightened restrictions in WA, making it tougher for smokers to light up on the beach, in the car, at playgrounds or while eating out.

Banned: tobacco product displays in retail premises (with exemption for specialist tobacco retailers)

Banned: smoking in outdoor eating areas (with some exemptions)

Banned: smoking in cars with children under 17 years present

Banned: smoking near children’s playground equipment

Banned: smoking between the flags at the beach

Banned: forcing staff to work in designated smoking areas

Professor Daube, an expert on health policy from Curtin University, said anti-smoking groups will let those bans “settle-in” before setting new targets.

“Over the next five to 10 years I think the question we have got to be asking is when do you phase out the commercial selling of cigarettes?,” he said.

“Should they be sold from conventional sales outlets, should they only be sold on prescription or in specified outlets?”

The new stricter measures coming into play in September have outraged the Australian Hotels Association, who say the hospitality industry will not become a de facto “smoking police”.

They include a ban on smoking in all outdoor eating areas in restaurants, cafes and pubs. A Health Department spokesperson said “up to 50 per cent of outdoor areas of licensed premises (are) able to access an exemption, provided the area is not already and ‘enclosed public space’ or is the subject of a restaurant license”.

AHA (WA) chief executive Bradley Woods said the industry was frustrated by the perceived need for additional regulation when the vast majority of venue owners were already practicing self regulation and meeting the needs of consumers.

The new rules would impact every one of 4000 licensed venues in the state.

“Hospitality business operators aren’t sworn public officers and have no jurisdiction in being able to issue offenders with infringement notices or fines,” Mr Woods said.

Enforcement was up to the authorities.

“We will play our part in advising patrons of the legal parameters, but we won’t become ‘smoking police’. The architects of this legislation failed to consider the logistical implications of this legislation in venues located throughout one of the largest physical jurisdictions anywhere in the world.”

He said there had been no formal consultation process with the industry.

“You can’t simply impose police on an industry sector without consultation and then expect it to be responsible for the implementation, communication and enforcement of the legislation,” Mr Woods said.

Professor Daube, who is also the Australian Council for Smoking and Health president, said smoking was still killing 1200 West Australians each year and 100,000 had died since the dangers of lighting up became apparent in 1952.

“If you put together the new laws we have here and the new federal activity, my view is we are the best performing state in the best performing country in the world,” he said.

“Smoking is declining quite dramatically, we are down to 15 per cent adult smokers and under 5 per cent of 12- to 17-year-old smokers. When you consider that at one stage 70 per cent of men were smoking it’s a big step.”

Australian Medical Association WA president Gary Geelhoed said he was disappointed with the compromise.

“It’s hard to imagine the designation of having an outdoor smoking zone next to a non-smoking one,” Professor Geelhoed said.

“We’re certainly happy with the new laws, although we would have liked them to ban smoking in all public areas in the sense of hotels and so on, and a reasonable distance from the entrances to buildings, but all in all it’s just one more step.”

Both men don’t anticipate a backlash to the rules from smokers.

“All the surveys show public support. More than two-thirds of smokers want to quit and nobody except the tobacco industry wants people to take up smoking,” Professor Daube said.

“I’ve been working on tobacco for nearly 40 years and I’ve never seen a backlash. Smokers know that it is harming their health and harming the health of others.”

By DAILE PEPPER AND KATHERINE FENECH
Watoday, June 14, 2010

Indonesia will ask the World Trade Organization on June 22 to rule on its complaint that a US ban on clove cigarettes aimed at preventing teenagers from starting to smoke is discriminatory.

“We will ask the panel of judges and experts to rule in favor of our complaint and also ask the organization to issue a directive demanding that the United States withdraw its discriminatory regulation on clove cigarettes,” Deputy Trade Minister Mahendra Siregar told the Jakarta Globe on Sunday.

The complaint, Indonesia’s second against the United States and its fifth since joining the WTO in 1995, says tobacco legislation signed by US President Barack Obama last June is unfair because it bans cloves and not the mint used to make menthol cigarettes.

US tobacco companies told the Food and Drug Administration on March 31 that adding menthol did not make cigarettes more harmful or addictive.

“The United States must stop its discrimination against clove cigarettes. What we want is to have clove cigarettes treated with the same regulation as other cigarettes,” Mahendra said.

Menthol-flavored cigarettes that are produced by US manufacturers such as Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA and Lorillard Inc. were exempted as part of a 2008 compromise by lawmakers that led Altria to back the legislation. Menthol cigarettes, the most popular flavor, constitute 20 percent of the US market, according to Federal Trade Commission data.

Washington is almost certain to block the June 22 WTO request, after which Indonesia can make a second appeal that cannot be thwarted.

“We’re optimistic that the WTO will rule in our favor,” Mahendra said. “Indonesia and the United States are both WTO members, and there is no reason for the organization not to support us. We want equal standing on this matter.”

Indonesia is the world’s largest producer of clove cigarettes, produced by companies such as PT Gudang Garam and exports $500 million worth annually, a fifth of that to the United States.

Indonesia is the world’s fifth-biggest tobacco market, and clove cigarettes still account for most of that. The upstream and downstream industries employ 6.1 million people. Exports of cigarettes and cigars totaled $358 million in 2008, the last year for which data is available.

Only a relatively small number of clove cigarettes are exported, and they are coveted by some young people in the United States who see them as an alternative to more conventional brands.

The Indonesian government recently reorganized its road map for the tobacco industry through 2020, shifting priorities from revenue, health and workers, to the new order of workers, revenue and, finally, health.

The United States’ FDA banned cigarettes with fruit, confectionery or clove flavors last September, arguing they were particularly attractive to children. But the US ban does not include menthol-flavored cigarettes smoked by about 19 million Americans. Indonesia thinks the clove ban is unfair considering menthols are allowed.

Studies show that 17-year-olds are three times as likely to use flavored cigarettes than people over 25, according to the FDA.

Supervising the consultations with Indonesia will be one of the first tasks of the new US ambassador to the WTO, Michael Punke, whose Senate confirmation was held up for six months by Republican senators from the tobacco-growing state of Kentucky.

By Faisal Maliki Baskoro & Bloomberg

Starting next week, smokers will find it a little less convenient to pick up a pack of cigarettes in Everett.
Hoping to deliver another blow against smoking, the Board of Health on May 24 voted unanimously to ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. The ban, which takes effect next Tuesday, also applies to business establishments that include pharmacies, according to Heidi Porter, Everett’s public health director.

“Pharmacies and drugstores that sell tobacco products are essentially approving of the purchase and use of tobacco. And we think that sends a mixed message to consumers who are going to these pharmacies really for health care services,’’ Porter said, of what prompted the ban. “The bottom line is that these pharmacies are health care establishments.’’

The ban, which took the form of a revision to the board’s tobacco regulation, prohibits tobacco sales in any health care institution or establishments containing them, with “health care institution’’ defined to include pharmacies and drugstores.

Porter said since hospitals and medical offices in this area do not sell tobacco products, the ban on tobacco sales in pharmacies and businesses containing them was the key change. The revised ordinance also bans tobacco vending machines except in private clubs.

Everett becomes the fifth Massachusetts community to bar the sale of tobacco in pharmacies.

Boston led the way in December, 2008 when it became the second city in the country — the first was San Francisco — to adopt such a ban. The Boston ban, which took effect in February 2009, was part of a larger tightening by the city of its tobacco restrictions.

Similar bans on tobacco sales in pharmacies followed in Needham, Uxbridge, and Newton, according to Jason Dodd, director of the 5-City Tobacco Control Collaborative, a partnership among the health boards of Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Revere, and Somerville that works to develop and enforce anti-tobacco policies.

He said the Somerville Health Department is expected to put the idea of a ban in that city before its board after the start of the new fiscal year July 1.

Dr. Sean F. Connolly, chairman of the Everett Board of Health, said the board felt “it is hard to justify the paradox of a health care institution — which these pharmacies and stores with pharmacies are defined as — that is practicing good health and making people healthy through medications, being able to sell cigarettes, which are known carcinogens.’’

But Jon Hurst, president of the Retailers Association of Massachusetts, said his group opposes the bans that have been adopted in Everett and the other communities.

“As long as it’s a legal product, it seems to me consumers ought to have the choice of buying it at the store that they like to shop at,’’ he said, adding that communities adopting such rules ought to lose some of the funding they receive from the state’s cigarette tax to pay for anti-tobacco programs.

Everett has three pharmacies or establishments with pharmacies that have permits from the board to sell tobacco products, according to Porter.

She said the three — Walgreens, on Ferry Street; Rite-Aid, on Broadway; and Costco, on Mystic View Road — are being notified that they must remove tobacco products from their shelves by next Tuesday.

At an April 20 hearing the board held in considering the regulation, and at the May 24 meeting, representatives from Costco and Walgreens spoke against the change. Connolly said the two companies raised concerns about the financial impact of the ban on their establishments. He said the Costco representatives also noted that it would be virtually impossible for a minor to purchase cigarettes at Costco because it is a member-only business.

But Connolly said those arguments did not sway the board, which he said was focused on public health considerations.

“I see on a daily basis in my office the effects of cigarette smoking,’’ said Connolly, a podiatrist. “So it doesn’t take much to convince me that this is the right idea.’’

Kevin Horst, general manager of the Everett Costco store, said, “We certainly support the idea of stopping teens from smoking, but at this time we don’t have a comment on this specific regulation as it is written. We are exploring options.’’

Robert Elfinger, spokesman for the Walgreens corporation, said, “We intend to comply with the new law.’’

Speaking in favor of the ban at the hearing were members of Teens in Everett Against Substance Abuse, a local youth group that advocates for measures to address substance abuse issues in the city.

Members of the group, an initiative of the Cambridge Health Alliance, offered statistics on the negative impacts of tobacco on human health, and spoke of the disconnect between tobacco products and a pharmacy, said program director Jean Granick.
By John Laidler
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.

Wellington – Tobacco companies are using at least eight ways to persuade women to smoke cigarettes, 10 years after a law restricting advertising was introduced, a group of New Zealand researchers said Friday.

The Health Ministry said that while only 1-in-5 adult New Zealanders smokes, half of all indigenous Maori women use cigarettes regularly with negative impacts on children, including infant mortality, premature births, low birth weights, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome.

Researchers from the University of Otago and Whakauae Research for Mori Health and Development released their study ahead of Monday’s World Smokefree Day.

They said tobacco companies used female-oriented cigarette brand names such as Cameo Mild, Vogue Bleue and Topaz and packaging and colours designed to appeal to women.

Foreign fashion magazines contained cigarette advertising directed at women and girls, showing women smoking brands available in New Zealand and continued to use deceptive terms such as “light” and “mild” in online advertisements contrary to a ruling by the watchdog Commerce Commission in 2008, their study found.

The researchers said the use of words like “subtle” and “mellow” to describe brands formerly called “light” in New Zealand and menthol cigarettes were aimed at female smokers who may delay quitting because they believed they were less harmful.

Dr Heather Gifford from the Whakauae group called for tighter marketing controls pending a phase-out of all tobacco sales in 10 years.

LEXINGTON, Ky.-Burley tobacco growers in the United States sounded the alarm today on proposed regulations originating out of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) that could lead to a worldwide ban on blended, American-style cigarettes that contain burley tobacco.

The rules were recommended by a Working Group of the FCTC for implementation under Articles 9 and 10 of the treaty, which has 168 signatories. Canada, Norway and the EU are spearheading the effort to eliminate American-style cigarettes from the global marketplace.

“The FCTC’s Working Group on Articles 9 and 10 have declared all out war on growers of burley tobacco,” said Roger Quarles, the president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association, an organization representing burley growers in several tobacco states in America. “If adopted and implemented by the signatories to the FCTC, these overly broad guidelines will decimate burley growers in the United States. This is an issue of fairness, it’s an issue of jobs, and it’s an issue of global health bureaucrats running afoul of common sense.”

Leaders of the Working Group, particularly the delegation from Canada, have attempted to confuse the media and policymakers into believing that its FCTC regulatory agenda is largely focused on ridding the marketplace of tobacco products that have candy or confectionary flavor. Banning these types of products is a laudable goal shared by tobacco growers, and is something that has been accomplished in the United States, France and Australia without imposing undue hardships on the growers of burley tobacco.

“There is absolutely no defensible health reason for the WHO to single out American-style cigarettes,” Quarles continued. “This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to confuse the public and policymakers into believing that American-style cigarettes are somehow more attractive than non-blended cigarettes, which is patently untrue. Some consumers prefer blended; some prefer flue-cured products. Both products taste like tobacco; neither leave a candy-flavored or any other characterizing taste with consumers.”

The proposed guidelines originating from the FCTC extend to all ingredients, and would for all intents and purposes, eliminate blended products from the marketplace. These proposed guidelines are now open to comment from the signatories to the FCTC.

“It is our hope that reason will prevail at the WHO,” Quarles said. “While we agree that steps should be taken to reduce youth smoking by eliminating candy-flavored tobacco products, it would be devastating to the livelihoods of tobacco farmers everywhere in the world if these misguided and overly broad regulations are adopted as part of the FCTC. Therefore we call on the US Administration, congress and other governments around the world to adopt a common sense approach and reject these irrational and potentially devastating guidelines.”

CONCORD, NH – New Hampshire teens involved in anti-drug programs have helped persuade the New Hampshire House to pass a bill banning e-cigarette use by minors and are pressing the Senate to do the same, the Associated Press reports.

The ubiquitous electronic smokes are readily available throughout the state, and the concern is that their usage, which includes a dose of nicotine steam, will lead to regular cigarette usage.

The AP writes that proponents of the proposed ban want New Hampshire to apply the same standards that it has in place for tobacco products, which are barred in workplaces and other public places and banned for use by minors.

The FDA does not currently regulate electronic cigarettes, though the issue has been contentious and battled out in the court system.

The Electronic Cigarette Association (ECA) supports restricting the product’s use to adults and supports New Hampshire’s effort to keep the product out of the hands of minors, according to the AP.

“Usage of electronic cigarettes is a lot like smoking. That is an adult activity,” said James Watt, an ECA board member.

New Hampshire state Rep. Rich DiPentima said that the legislation is intended to put state regulations in place since the FDA has ruled that it will not take action.

TOPEKA, Kansas — Proposals to increase taxes on cigarettes, tobacco and alcohol would hit convenience stores hard, Thomas Palace, executive director of the Petroleum Marketers & Convenience Store Association of Kansas, told The Topeka Capital-Journal. As the Senate Taxation Committee considered hikes to the state’s cigarette and tobacco taxes Wednesday, he joked that he considered wearing a big bull’s-eye to the Capitol.

Faced with a deepening budget shortfall that now exceeds $400 million, lawmakers are trying to find ways to close the gap, said the report. The committee heard testimony on a bill that would raise the tax on cigarettes by 55 cents per pack to the national average of $1.34. It also would increase the tax on tobacco products, such as cigars and chewing tobacco, to 40% from 10%. The increased taxes could bring in an estimated $69.5 million in new tax dollars, according to the report..

Committee Chairman Les Donovan, noted the dire budget problems. “We have to do something on the revenue side,” he told the newspaper. “We don’t know if we can cut enough more spending to get us out of here this year. If we can’t, we’re going to do something to raise some revenue some way to try to get us whole again.”

Supporters of the tax increase said it was necessary to help avoid dire cuts and would lower smoking among youths. Oopponents said a tax increase would devastate their businesses.

“In my 30-plus years of observing and serving in the Kansas Legislature taxes have always been a popular topic,” Doug Mays, a former Topeka lawmaker who spoke on behalf of the Cigar Association of America, told the paper. “But in all that time, I can’t recall such stratospheric numbers being proposed in this bill.”

The tax increase, opponents said, would drive business online and to neighboring Missouri, which boasts the lowest tobacco tax in the nation.

Brenda Ellsworth, operations officer for Pete’s convenience stores, said Kansas c-stores also are disadvantaged by a higher gasoline tax and prohibition on selling strong beer and wine. “Our state has provided wonderful roads for our customers to use while commuting to Missouri,” she told the Capital-Journal.

NEW DELHI: Government is all set to ban foreign direct investment (FDI) in cigarette manufacturing. A cabinet note towards this end has been prepared by the commerce and industry ministry and circulated among the other ministries of the cabinet committee on economic affairs (CCEA).

A ban on FDI in manufacturing of cigarettes will affect existing foreign players’ future investment plans in the country. However, it will not affect their existing investments in Indian ventures. At present, three major global players — British American Tobacco (BAT), Japan Tobacco and the Altria Group — have large investments in India. The cabinet note also proposed to prohibit franchise operations for foreign companies to manufacture cigarettes for domestic consumption. It has proposed to allow FDI in SEZs for exports.

According to the note, all the major ministries have given their approvals to ban FDI in cigarette manufacturing. In its comment, which was sent to the commerce and industry ministry on February 3, finance ministry supported the ban. While, the Planning Commission has also approved the ban, health ministry suggested to include cigarette in the list of activities that are prohibited for FDI. At present 100% FDI is allowed in the sector with prior government approval.

If the cabinet approves the proposal, it will affect the plan of Japan Tobacco, which owns brand like Camel, to increase its stake in Indian venture from 50% to 75%, with an investment of $100 million. At present, the rest 50% in the company is owned by KK Modi group.

Similarly, BAT wants to increase its stake in ITC from 31.8% to 51%. Earlier in 1996-97, BAT’s move to hike stake was thwarted by the financial institutions’ nominees on the company’s board. Now, if the ban is approved by CCEA, BAT cannot increase its stake in ITC and it will continue to be a fully professionally-managed company without any promoter. In Godfrey Philips India, Altria group owns 25% stake. The company has recently launched its iconic brand Marlboro in India.

The move to ban FDI in cigarette manufacturing was initiated through a cabinet note dated January 23, 2009. The CCEA, however, deferred the proposal and decided for further inter-ministerial consultation. As the inter-ministerial consultation is now over, the commerce department has moved the note to CCEA again for approval.

CLIO — Its official the governor signs a new bill into law that makes Michigan 1 of 38 states to have a cigarette smoking ban. With some businesses trying to stay afloat in tough economic times many wonder how this will affect their profits.

Friday night’s for many bars rely on good music good drinks and for some good smokes.But the new state smoking ban blows a cloud of smoke on lighting up in public restaurants, bars and workplaces.

Clover Leaf bar owner Richard Smith said although many of his customers smoke, he’s not worried that the ban will hurt business but plans to makes some changes to keep business booming. “I will submit a permit in the next few days. I will have a 20 by 30 patio outside,” said Smith.

Clover Leaf regular and smoker Brad McGinnis says he plans to still frequent the bar despite the ban but he will make some other changes. “Well it’s a bought time to quit anyways, they’re almost $7.00 a pack so you know it will probably just help motivate me to stop smoking actually,” McGinnis said.

While many others may be concerned about their business profits, Mr. Smith says he’s been preparing for weeks towards a smoke free environment. “I talked to some of my patrons about it and they said they would quit smoking if they had to,” said Smith.

And across the state other business prepare for the May 1st deadline. That’s when all ashtrays in restaurants and bars will be banned.

Richard Smith is looking on the bright side on things and actually hoping he’ll have more business because he’ll bring in none smokers.

The ban applies to all public places but exceptions to the law apply to some Detroit casinos, cigar bars, tobacco stores and motor vehicles.

The city is banning smoking in Topeka bars, but area bars aren’t about to ban their smokers.

No, they can’t smoke inside come 12:01 a.m. Friday, but some bars are making adjustments to make outside smoke breaks a little more comfortable. Several bars that already have outdoor seating are improving it, and those that don’t are looking at adding it.

At the Dutch Goose last month, work continued on a partially covered outdoor seating area outside the bar’s back door that will be heated and have music piped to it from outdoor speakers. Sidelines Bar & Grill is adding heaters, and McB’s Sports Grill is capitalizing on its existing patio space with outdoor speakers by partially enclosing the area with canvass and adding heaters and comfortable seating.

“We’re trying to do what we can,” McB’s owner Jerry Berger said. “We’re even thinking about putting a TV out there — a big-screen TV out there — so they can watch games.”

Varsity Blues owner Kim Galey has outdoor seating, but she isn’t ready to spend money on updates just yet.

“Not until they actually get it figured out what the rules are,” she said. “I’m going to sit back and see how it is going to go and how it’s going to play out.”

Galey said she feels lucky to have the option of offering an outdoor smoking area, but like many other owners of bars that have allowed smoking, she bristles at being told how to run her business.

“It’s a bar,” she said. “A bar. You walk into it knowing it’s a bar, but we’ll have to see how it rolls, and then I’ll make decisions about what I’m going to do with the patio.”

At other places, finances prevent investing money in outdoor amenities. The Brass Rail in the Oakland area has prepared with a small sign of protest. The words “The end to our freedom of choice” are written on the chalkboard.

“It’s a bad deal,” said bartender Lesley Hayward.

Some bars are unsure how the ban will play out. Already, some new bars had opened this year as nonsmoking establishments, including the Rooster Tail and the Seabrook when it relocated downtown. But bars like the Dutch Goose know that most of their customers are puffing away on cigarettes at night. Other customers could do without the smoke.

“Secondhand smoke isn’t doing me a damn bit of good,” an older man bristled at the Dutch Goose on a recent afternoon.

Behind the bar at the Dutch Goose, manager Caitlin Wheeler expects business to drop off in the short term, even with the improved patio.

“I am so against this,” she said. “I am so against the ban.”

A petition seeking to force a public vote that might overturn the ban is still in the works. Petitioners will need valid signatures from at least 5,744 registered Topeka voters. They are working to collect 10,000 signatures before turning in the petition for review and have collected about 3,300 signatures that appear to be valid, organizers said.

Gail Trembley, a lead organizer, said more signing events are planned and petitioners will soon start going door-to-door. Currently, petitions are available at bars and other establishments in Topeka.

For now, Trembley said bars are getting ready to comply with the new rules.

“A couple of them I’ve been to are preparing for it,” she said. “They are dreading it, of course.”

Topeka police Capt. Jerry Stanley said he was getting “a lot of 11th-hour phone calls about smoking issues.” He said business owners should ask anyone violating the ordinance on their property to stop smoking and to call police if they don’t.

By Barbara Hollingsworth
December 2, 2009 Cjonline

Towson University will be a smoke-free campus, it announced Wednesday, becoming Maryland’s first four-year college to ban an activity once as commonplace as lounging on the quad.

The reason for the policy, which goes into effect in August, is simple, administrators said: They want to reduce health risks from smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke.

“I don’t try to guide people in how they live their lives, but I am going to protect the campus so it’s clean and pleasant for as many people as possible,” said Towson President Robert L. Caret.

Smoking is already banned in campus buildings at Towson, but under the new rules, it will be off-limits on the grounds: on sidewalks, in garages and parking lots, and even outside the bar at Bill Bateman’s Bistro.

Towson joins a rapidly growing list of U.S. colleges – at least 365, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation – that have banned smoking on campus. Last year, Montgomery College became the first Maryland institution of higher education to take the leap. Harford, Frederick and Carroll community colleges have followed suit. Pennsylvania’s university system has banned smoking on all of its campuses.

“I don’t really care that we’re first on this one,” Caret said. “It was done more for practical reasons. But I expect to see more schools go this way. It’s just the trend today.”

Towson officials have discussed the ban since last year, and the university held forums on the issue for faculty, students and staff. The Student Government Association voted to support the ban last month.

Caret said a survey found that a very small percentage of students and faculty smoke and that those who do smoke less frequently than they did in the past. The policy encountered some opposition from student leaders. “But there wasn’t too much push-back,” Caret said. “Very few objections on principle, mostly on pragmatic details.”

Some students raised safety concerns about having to walk to the edge of campus late at night to smoke. Others wondered if the university will be able to enforce the rule, noting that a current ban on smoking within 30 feet of school buildings is only loosely followed.

“I don’t know how they will ever successfully stop everybody from smoking. I think kids will just do it anyway,” said Alex Lokey, a senior from Woodbine who smokes.

Lokey said he sees people breaking the 30-foot rule all the time and has never heard of anyone having to pay the $250 fine. For him, smoking is just part of college life.

“Obviously, it’s a good thing [to ban smoking], but as a college student it’s almost like a staple – coffee, cigarettes, stress and no sleep,” Lokey said. “It’s like a quintessential break from an overload of studying.”

Students said existing rules have had little impact at Linthicum Hall, the English and psychology building and a well-known gathering place for smokers.

“You walk through there, and there are clouds of smoke,” said Leslie Zuknick, a senior from Gambrills who does not smoke. “You smell like a cigarette when you walk out.”

Caret said the ban will be easier to enforce than the more convoluted rules now in place.

“It will be more of a black-and-white issue,” he said. He hopes the campus won’t have to develop “smoking police” and instead will rely on administrators and supervisors to enforce the policy gently but firmly.

Students and staff members who violate the rules will face fines and sanctions. Visitors who light up may be barred from future access to the 328-acre campus.

Some students said the ban will improve campus.

Rachel Jochem, a senior from Tabernacle, N.J., said she thinks the smoke-free policy will promote a “better image” for the university and might attract students who don’t smoke.

Casey Crass, a senior from Mount Laurel, N.J., said that most smokers just deposit their cigarette butts on the ground. “It’s trashing our campus,” Crass said.

In advance of the ban, Towson will offer free classes through its health center to help students, faculty and staff quit smoking.

“By not having smoking on campus, kids will stop smoking,” said Lora Brown, a senior from Medford, N.J.

Copyright (c) 2009, The Baltimore Sun
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

For reprints, email tmsreprints@permissionsgroup.com, call 800-374-7985 or 847-635-6550, send a fax to 847-635-6968, or write to The Permissions Group Inc., 1247 Milwaukee Ave., Suite 303, Glenview, IL 60025, USA.

PALESTINE — Smoking in public places, places of employment and some outdoor areas will be prohibited here under an ordinance adopted Monday by Palestine City Council. Bars, nightclubs and some other places are exempted from the smoking ban.

The ordinance further makes it unlawful to smoke within 20 feet of outside entrances, operable windows and ventilation systems of enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited.

In an unrelated action, the council extended hours for the sale of mixed beverages to 2 a.m.

The nonsmoking order, passed by a majority of councilmembers with two nay votes, makes employers responsible for providing a smoke-free workplace for employees.

It charges the owner, manager or other persons in control of a public place or a place of employment to post “No Smoking” signs conspicuously at the entrance.

Besides prohibiting smoking in all places of employment and enclosed public places, the ordinance forbids smoking in these outdoor areas: boarding and waiting areas of public transportation facilities, zoos, city parks, playgrounds and recreation areas.

But the ordinance permits smoking in designated smoking areas of city parks.

Other places also exempted from the ban on smoking are: a private residence unless it is used as a child care, adult daycare or health care facility, a retail tobacco store, a private club, a facility owned or under control of another governmental or educational institution, a hotel or motel room rented to a guest, a bar, a bingo hall and an outdoor area including a patio adjacent to a bar or restaurant served by employees of the bar or restaurant and at least 20 feet from an enclosed area where smoking is prohibited.

The ordinance classifies a violation of the smoking ban as a misdemeanor and sets penalties. The first offense can result in a fine of not more than $300. The punishment can be as much as $500 for subsequent violations of the smoking restriction.

Council’s action on the smoking issue came in response to concerns expressed by many health-care professionals in Palestine for stronger smoking regulations and a need to eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke in public places, according to the ordinance.

Cody Harris of the Palestine Young Professionals Network requested in September an ordinance prohibiting secondhand smoke in public places and places of employment. About a month later, the council conducted a public hearing to allow proponents and opponents to speak.

The ordinance adopted by council notes that the U.S. Surgeon General released a report in 2006 stating there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke and that breathing even a small amount can be harmful to health.

The U.S. Surgeon General concluded that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer, heart disease and acute respiratory effects and can cause sudden infant death syndrome and other health problems in infants and children.

“Simple separation of smokers from nonsmokers within the same airspace does not eliminate the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke,” the ordinance states.

In other action, the council approved extended hours for the sale of mixed beverages between midnight and 2 a.m. at locations where sale of alcoholic beverages for on-site consumption is permitted. The extension was requested by owners of Whistle Stop Saloon.

The council also authorized lease/purchase of a fire engine for $247.505. Payments will be $50,000 a year for five years.

By BETTY WATERS

Come next month, smokers beware: If you light up in a public park in Tacoma, you’ll be breaking the law.

By a 6-3 vote, the Tacoma City Council approved late Tuesday an ordinance that makes smoking in any public park in the city illegal.

“To me, this is like the noise ordinance,” said Councilman Jake Fey, who supported the measure. “There needs to be a balance.”

The ordinance makes such public smoking a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $25 fine, although city officials have said police do not plan to actively enforce the law.

Supporters said the measure is a way to protect seniors, children and others from the dangers of second-hand smoke, as well as to promote overall healthy living.

Councilwoman Connie Ladenburg noted that her 11-year-old grandson has such severe asthma, he cannot enjoy parks when any cigarette smoke is present. Without such a law, she said, her grandson and other nonsmokers will remain vulnerable to secondhand smoke effects imposed upon them by smokers.

“He doesn’t have a choice to breathe, but smokers have a choice if they smoke or not,” she said.

Councilman Spiro Manthou, who unsuccessfully promoted a compromise to restrict smoking only near certain areas in parks, such as playgrounds, disagreed that any conclusive science proves secondhand smoke in an outside environment poses significant health dangers.

Noting that police don’t intend to actively enforce the ban, Manthou added, “I’m not comfortable that this (ordinance) is going to make any effect.”

Council members Julie Anderson and Mike Lonergan also voted against the ordinance.

Lonergan reeled off a list of public areas now restricted under the ban, including parking lots at parks, public fishing piers and docks, Cheney Stadium and Meadow Park Golf Course, among others.

“This is what we’re doing, we’re restricting the liberties of 20 percent of the population,” said Lonergan, citing figures showing about one in five people smoke.

Councilman Rick Talbert, chairman of the Tacoma-Pierce County Board of Health who helped sponsor the measure, has said the measure isn’t about impeding smokers’ rights, but safeguarding those who don’t smoke and spreading public awareness about tobacco’s dangers.

Tacoma joins more than 400 jurisdictions nationwide with similar smoking bans in public parks, including Puyallup. The park smoking ban in Tacoma will take effect on Nov. 2, a city spokesman said.

By Lewis Kamb: 253-597-8542
lewis.kamb@thenewstribune.com
News Tribune
10/22/09

DAMASCUS – Syria banned smoking inside public places on Sunday, the official news agency said.

The decree, signed by President Bashar al-Assad, sets a fine of 2,000 ($46) Syrian pounds on anyone flouting the ban in cafes, pubs and restaurants, the SANA agency said.

The ban extends to schools and public transport, and covers the nargile, or water pipe, a favorite among locals and tourists alike.

Those owning and running buildings where people violate the law, which also includes strengthening a ban on tobacco adverts, will be fined and, in some cases, imprisone.

The age of 18, when an American citizen becomes a legal adult, marks many rights of passage – the ability to vote, enlist in the army, get a tattoo or piercing and buy a pack of cigarettes. However, many college campuses are beginning to prohibit that last rite of passage.

As of this month, there are over 300 colleges that enforce “100 percent smoke-free campuses” according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation, including University at Buffalo, the first SUNY school to enforce the ban. Buffalo established the UBreathe Free policy for the 2009-10 school year, prohibiting smoking anywhere except for designated parking lots 100 feet or more from campus, but hopes to become completely smoke free by August 2010.

According to a 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 31 percent of college students smoke, compared to 25 percent of the rest of the country.

Currently, on the Binghamton University campus, smoking is prohibited inside all buildings and other designated areas, but is allowed outdoors within 25 feet of building entries or windows.

Linda Spear, a distinguished professor of psychology at BU who specializes in addictions, thinks that while a campus-wide ban may be good in the distant future, it could initially have some negative side effects.

“Not allowing smoking on campus would help people quit smoking which is a good thing in the long run,” Spear said. “(But) if they can’t smoke on campus, they’ll start going through withdrawal and likely show withdrawal symptoms, such as irritability and lack of concentration.”

Steve Burns, a junior engineering major, has been smoking cigarettes for years and thinks that the University’s current stance is fair.

“If you stand far enough away from buildings and do what you’re supposed to do it should be fine,” Burns said. “As long as you’re not bothering anyone I don’t see what the problem is.”

Recently, the city of Ithaca is beginning to consider a ban on smoking in public areas due to the dangers of second-hand smoke. New York City implemented an indoor smoking ban in 2003.

In June of this year, President Obama signed an anti-smoking bill allowing the Food and Drug Association to reduce the amount of nicotine in tobacco products and ban flavored tobacco products.

While some students may object to the smoking ban as a violation of rights, the preventative health measures may outweigh their concerns.

Matthew Eng, a junior biology major and vice president for the Student Environmental Awareness Club on campus thinks that while smoking cigarettes does not strongly impact the environment, it will be good for students’ health.

“I think that people should be allowed to smoke, as long as they stay 20 feet away from a building,” Eng said. “But i think that a smoking ban would help improve the health of a lot of people on campus.”

By Elena Cox
October 06, 2009

Discriminatory taxes on cigarettes have not helped reduce the tobacco consumption in the country, says ITC divisional chief executive (tobacco
division) Kurush Grant. In an exclusive chat with ET, he says that the move has only led some consumers moving to smuggled and tax evaded cigarettes:

What are your views on discriminatory taxes on cigarettes vis-a-vis other tobacco products?

Though cigarettes account for less than 15% of the total tobacco consumed in India, it contributes more than 90% of the total tax revenue collected from the tobacco industry. While the intent of the government has been to reduce the aggregate consumption of tobacco, extremely high tax rate on cigarettes has only served to squeezed demand for the cigarette form of tobacco, even as total consumption of tobacco in the country continues to grow.

In fact, it is only tax which makes cigarettes more expensive than bidis and chewing tobacco. Even Ministry of Health, in their publications, has said that increase in taxation on cigarettes leads a section of consumers to move to revenue-inefficient tobacco products, including smuggled and tax evaded cigarettes.

Conversely, when cigarette tax rates are stable and the economy is growing, people upgrade to cigarettes from other revenue inefficient forms of tobacco. This, in turn, helps tax collections as well. Though the tax rates on other forms of tobacco are much lower (compared to cigarettes), tax avoidance is high in that sector.

Apart from disparity in taxation on tobacco products, is the cigarette industry beset with other problems?
While disparity in taxation on tobacco products has always been a cause for concern, it has now led to other alarming consequences. The high arbitrage opportunity in tax avoidance, given the extremely high rates, have led to the trade moving into unscrupulous hands. The markets are today flooded with contraband and tax avoiding illegal cigarettes.

On the one hand, you have cigarettes getting smuggled into India from neighbouring as well as western countries. I am told that these contraband cigarettes have a market share of higher than 20% in some markets like Indore. This apart, the vacuum created by exit of the popular low priced non-filter cigarettes has been occupied by duty-evading regular size filter cigarettes which are sold to consumers at Rs 10 per packet of 10 cigarettes (a rate lower than the tax payable on these cigarettes).

These low-priced illegal cigarettes are a growing threat to the legitimate industry, government revenue, market stability and the social objective of regulating tobacco consumption.

Will imposition of graphic health warnings adversely impact cigarette manufacturers?

Imposition of graphic health warnings on tobacco products has impacted cigarettes more than other tobacco products. But it has given a fillip to the growth of smuggled contraband trade as these cigarette packs do not carry the specified graphic warnings. Legitimate cigarette industry strictly following the graphic health warnings are impacted by such blatant avoidance by the illegal industry.

Q. The severe taxation and regulatory milieu for cigarettes in India remains a cause for concern. Coming close on the heels of the smoking ban
in public places, the cigarette industry was subjected to imposition of pictorial graphic warnings during the quarter. In this backdrop and keeping in mind that the cigarettes business still accounts for nearly 50% of the total earnings, how challenging has marketing of cigarettes become for a company like ITC?

KG: The marketing of cigarettes to existing tobacco consumers has always been a competitively challenging task. Due to the taxation regime and large scale illegal trade taking advantage of it, it becomes even more challenging since the level playing field is an uneven one. However, our robust strategies and attention to quality have seen us in good stead. This has resulted in our strong brands such as Goldflake, Navy Cut, Bristol, Flake, Classic and others receiving constant consumer preference.

Q. What, according to ITC, should be the structure of the proposed goods & service tax (GST) which would benefit both government as well as cigarette manufacturers?

KG: Historically, highly taxed products have a specific rate rather than ad-valorem rates and are ideally taxed at a single point at the factory gates itself. Cigarettes, given the high rates of taxation, merit only a single point central excise duty as it has been proved to be the most efficient way of collecting tax for such a product.

The goods and services tax (GST) is meant to be a tax on value. In cigarettes, more than 90% of the value is created at the manufacturing point itself and should be taxed at a specific rate at that single point, since it is impractical to collect levies from millions of small retailers and convenience shops. For a highly taxed product like cigarettes, where taxes are almost 190% of the ex-factory price, it is best to keep it outside the ambit of the proposed GST.

Cigarettes should continue with single-point, specific central excise levy with a revenue neutral additional excise duty which can be passed on to the states. In fact, a single point specific duty has been recommended by most of the expert tax panels set up to look into the structure of taxation and centre-state share of taxes. The Tobacco Institute of India has made several representations in this regard.

Q. Will implementation of GST impact the movement of smuggled contraband cigarettes which already enjoys an illegal advantage of tax arbitrage? Please elaborate.

KG: It will depend entirely on the manner in which GST is implemented on tobacco. A single point, first point specific excise duty subsuming all other taxes would certainly be the more revenue efficient methodology.

Q. ITC’s marketing and distribution network services some 2 million outlets a day. How is the company planning to expand its distribution reach, especially since the company has been launching a spate of products in the personal care and branded packaged food segment?

KG: The reach of ITC’s distribution network is well known. Any expansion in this reach will always be based on a combination of growth in new channels and requirements of existing and new products.

As countries across the EU curb smoking in public, Sweden is fighting to get a European-wide ban lifted on ‘snus,’ a moist tobacco popular across Scandinavia that is sucked rather than chewed or smoked.

The small, teabag-like pouches, also called moist snuff, are used by nearly one million people in Sweden, the only EU member state where sales are permitted.

Placed under the user’s lip, they quickly deliver a nicotine rush to the blood and a strong salt and herbs flavour in the mouth.

While cigarette sales have tumbled by 50 per cent in Sweden over the past 30 years, snus is on the up, with sales rising from some 2,500 tonnes a year in the 1970s to almost 7,500 tonnes in 2008.

That equals some 800 sachets a year for the average Swedish snus user.

It is also popular in other parts of the Nordic region.

In Norway, outside of the EU, some 400,000 people use it on a regular basis while 100,000 Finns have to travel to Sweden to stock up, official data shows.

Sweden obtained an exemption when the European Union banned snus in 1992.

With many member states also banning smoking in public places, tobacco industry giants are looking to tap into this potentially lucrative market.

Swedish Match, the number one snus manufacturer in the Nordic country, reported sales of 660 million euros ($A1.12 billion) in Sweden in 2008.

The snus ban could be set for review in 2010 and Swedish Match’s head of public affairs, Patrick Hildingsson, said that would provide “a window of opportunity” to make their case for legalisation elsewhere.

In February, Philip Morris International set up a joint venture with Swedish Match and last year British American Tobacco snapped up Sweden’s second-biggest cigarette maker, Fiedler & Lundgren.

“We want to expand our business and it goes well along with the new smoking regulations,” explained Hildingsson.

While snus has started to be gradually rolled out in the United States, South Africa and Canada, the ban remains in place across Europe.

In its role at the helm of the EU presidency, Sweden is in prime position to make its case and Stockholm has intensified talks with the European Commission and other member states on the subject.

“As the presidency, you’re not supposed to put things on the agenda that can be seen as national priorities … But on the other hand, we cannot rule out that this issue will come up in some form during other discussions,” Swedish Trade Minister Ewa Bjoerling told Agence France-Presse.

She argued that other forms of “oral” tobacco are allowed to be sold within the EU and points out that her country has one of the lowest rates of smoking.

But Sweden and the snus makers will have to battle Brussels to get their product to market as health experts warn consuming tobacco in this way is dangerous and highly addictive.

“There are strong suspicions that mouth and pancreatic cancers and also cardiovascular disease increase for people that use snus,” said Anders Ahlbom, a professor at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute.

“We’ve managed to save 400 million Europeans from snus. Why bring it in just because the tobacco industry wants to?” he asked.

Sweden’s Institute for Public Health published a report in May arguing there was “strong scientific proof that (snus) has negative effects on health”.


Copyright © 2009 AFP

One of the more curious political backlashes in recent decades has been conservatives’ criticism of the anti-tobacco movement. Though at times draped in libertarian arguments, the arguments inevitably sound pro-tobacco.

We’re not big on prohibition because it doesn’t work. But there are good reasons to restrict public tobacco use. Tobacco smoke affects the health of non-users and tobacco-related health problems annually cost taxpayers nearly $10 billion in Medicare expenditures alone, according to some estimates.

That’s why we’re OK with restrictions like requiring smokers to go outside.

But we admit to struggling just a bit with proposals to dishonorably discharge tobacco, in all its forms, from the U.S. military. A recent study commissioned by the Veterans Affairs Department and the Pentagon has recommended that the military strive to become tobacco free in the next 20 years or so.

The reasons for the recommendation are simple and sound: Smoking (or chewing or snuffing) is bad for soldiers. So bad, in fact, that it costs the Defense Department an estimated $1.6 billion a year in medical care and lost work days.

And just as at any work place, it seems more than a little unfair for nicotine-addicted soldiers to be granted automatic “smoking breaks” while their non-smoking buddies get no such (albeit brief) down time.

Perhaps most importantly, since studies have found nicotine to be more addictive than cocaine, heroin and alcohol — harder to kick, at any rate — do we really wish a lifetime of addiction on our veterans?

No doubt about it, G.I. Joe and Jane ought to toss the smokes.

Yet smoking in a war zone is, according to many soldiers and veterans, a beloved tradition and rare pleasure in a high-stress, sometimes brutal environment.

And we’re inclined to cut soldiers a break. It’s patently ridiculous, for example, to prohibit under-21 men and women willing to lay their lives on the line from drinking alcohol when not in a battle zone (where alcohol is — or is supposed to be — banned). Likewise, if “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em” brings them a little peace of mind, it feels a little harsh to prohibit tobacco.

But then we remember that tobacco use ultimately harms U.S. service personnel. A third of active-duty military personnel use tobacco (including as many as 50 percent in war zones) compared to just a fifth of Americans overall.

And at least the military is approaching the problem in the right way — by increments. Twenty years is a long time to effect change, and graduated restrictions over the years — including the obvious move of jettisoning cheap tobacco from military commissaries — may work, just as they have in the general population. Consider that tobacco use already is banned during basic training, hardly a stress-free experience.

If we truly support our troops, getting them off tobacco is a great way to show it. But changing this long-standing tradition must be done with great care and patience.


Copyright © 1 Sept, 2009 Dailycamera

HARTFORD, Conn. – A proposed increase in the tobacco tax in the state budget could have smokers in Connecticut paying more for their packs.

Both the governor and Democrats favor a cigarette tax of $3, which would make the state’s cigarette tax the second highest in the country.

Gov. Jodi Rell’s office estimated raising the cigarette tax by $1 will bring in an extra $230 million over the next two years. Right now the money is slated to go to the General Fund.

Tobacco activist Pat Checko said the money should go where it matters.

“We are one of only five states that has no Medicaid cessation,” Checko said.

Checko chairs the group Mobilizing Against Tobacco For Connecticut’s Health, also known as MATCH.

She said Connecticut ranks at the bottom when it comes to states spending money on tobacco prevention. She said 21 percent of Connecticut high school students smoke – more than double the number of high school smokers in NY City.

Checko said New York pours money into tobacco prevention programs and a state-funded hotline to help people quit.

She said if the revenue from this higher tax is spent on prevention, it could cut smoking in our state by 11 percent.

Copyright © August 27, 2009 Wfsb

Tobacco giants could be forced to pack their cigarettes in plain packaging following the introduction of new laws into Parliament by Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding today.

“What this legislation will do is take the polish off cigarette branding and the positive images the tobacco giants try to associate with their products, Senator Fielding said.

“There is no case for allowing any glossy brand promotion for a product that is lethal and addictive.

“These new laws take the move by some state governments to ban point of sale advertising a step further by taking away all promotion of tobacco.”

“Smoking related diseases cost the Australian community over $30 billion each year.”

Chair of Cancer Council Australia’s tobacco issues committee, Kylie Lindorff, said Family First’s reforms to tobacco product packaging are essential to reducing the unacceptable level of cancer death and disability caused by smoking in Australia.

“It is incongruous enough that a poorly regulated product that is available from retailers almost anywhere kills more than half of its consumers,” Ms Lindorff said.

“For the products to also be marketed in glossy packets intended to convey the aspirations or sense of identity of the consumer is even more absurd.”

The Heart Foundation also strongly supports Senator Fielding’s laws because current cigarette packaging is a potent form of advertising and promotion for smoking.

“Generic plain packaging, with a clear graphic warning on the front and back of the pack, should be mandated to counter the allure of smoking and reduce the disease burden it causes,” National Heart Foundation’s tobacco control spokesperson, Maurice Swanson said

The Public Health Association of Australia says smoking is the largest single preventable cause of death and disease in Australia, with over 15,000 deaths each year.

MOSCOW – Amid smoldering contention over Moscow’s new smoking ban that goes into effect today, a few wisps of humor lingered Monday.

“Never smoked a day in my life,” declared 50-year-old Corner Club patron Ted English as he nursed a can of Rainier Beer in Moscow’s oldest watering hole. “Now I’m going to have to go elsewhere to get my secondhand smoke.”

Nearby, 22-year-old University of Idaho student Sam Larrondo sipped on a 32-ounce “Tub” and said he hoped to use the citywide ban as a personal catalyst. “I ran out of cigs last night,” Larrondo said, explaining he’d quit cold turkey for about 12 hours and planned to stay that way.

“It will be nice not having my clothes smell like smoke anymore,” said 21-year-old Ryan Sundberg, Larrondo’s non-smoking drinking buddy.

But down the street at Mingles Bar and Grill, 53-year-old Sharon Shafor took a drag on her cigarette, exhaled and said she didn’t see anything humorous about the town’s new smoking ban. “Big Brother, or the city council, wants to pass laws to watch over you,” Shafor said. “I don’t feel like I’m in Idaho anymore.”

Moscow is the first city in Idaho, officials here said, to pass a smoking ban for all bars, private clubs and within 20 feet of public places. City Attorney Randy Fife said the ordinance ignited enough debate he drafted a news release last week addressing 12 frequently asked questions.

City councilors Monday night put final touches on the ordinance by adopting a range of fines for violations.

Enforcement falls not only to the police, according to the ordinance, but to owners and employees of bars and private clubs.

“The fine can go on both people,” said 34-year-old Jared Ham, a bartender at the Corner Club. “I don’t really feel like I want to pay fines because of other people.”

According to the ordinance, the first ticket for smoking will cost $10. If it isn’t paid in 14 days, the fine will increase to $50. A second ticket will cost $25, increasing to $50 if not paid in 14 days. A third ticket will cost $50 regardless of when it’s paid. A fourth ticket will be charged as a misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of a potential $1,000 fine and six months in jail. Typical misdemeanor fines, however, are around $188, Fife said.

“This was my place for freedom, or at least I thought it was,” Shafor said of her coming to Mingles to both smoke and drink. “It’s been since the 1800s that you could go into a bar and smoke. It took us women how long to get into a bar?”

English, who serves as governor of Moose Lodge 871 in Moscow, predicted dire business consequences, especially for private clubs. “As a Moose member, I know it’s going to hurt our business.” He said more than half of the approximately 400 Moose members smoke. And going outside to light up, English said, will force people (including elderly members) to negotiate stairs and leave the building.

“We could probably see a 25-percent decrease in business,” English said.

Pat Greenfield, owner of Bucer’s coffee house, said the new ordinance has resulted in some confusion about a cigar and pipe smoking room she’s had in her business for several years. Some people, like Fife, have said Bucer’s has been in violation of the Idaho Clean Air Act.

But Greenfield said Bucer’s smoking room was built under city guidelines (with proper ventilation), received city approval, was subject to state inspection and operated with no problems. Under the new ordinance, she said, the room will be closed.

The new ordinance, coupled with state code, has specific definitions for bars, private clubs and public places. The definitions boil down to smoking bans in virtually every indoor place where the public has access. The city ordinance also bans smoking within 20 feet of a bar, private club or public place.

The ordinance allows for smoking on adjacent decks and patios as long as the smoke can not get into a bar or private club. Smoking on the sidewalk is allowed as long as it is 20 feet or more away from public place entrances and exits.

Smokers, according to Fife, will also be allowed to smoke while walking down a street as long as they keep moving past entrances and exits to bars, private clubs and public places.

More than a year after the City of Elkhart banned smoking, there could be changes to the controversial ordinance.
Restaurants went smoke free immediately, but the city gave bars one year to comply. That exemption expired in May. The city council is now considering a request to revamp the rules.

“The smoking ban has really hurt a lot of small businesses,” Oscar Gibson told WSBT News.

Gibson owns The Big Easy bar in Elkhart. He says the smoking ban has cut his business in half.

“It’s not about smoking to us,” he said. “It was about legal business owners having a right to run their legal business, and we’ve been stomped on.”

Tony Anagnos runs the 523 Tap & Grill. In March, he switched his business from a pub to a restaurant with a bar.

“There was a lot of smoking that was going on in our previous bar,” he explained. “We went to non-smoking due to the city ordinance. We did have an extension but we decided we were going to go smoke free.”

But Tony is an exception. Most bars in the city are still bars, and several owners still want the ban removed.

They’ve certainly made their voices heard, and at least one city council member is listening. They have now asked the city to amend the current ordinance.

“Because it was a formal request, I then instructed our legal department to draft the ordinance, which would exempt those bars for some period of time or maybe make it a permanent part of the ordinance,” Elkhart Mayor Dick Moore said.

Ultimately it will be up to the city council to make the call about whether this amendment moves forward and if things change for bar owners around the city.

“It will probably go into a committee, there will probably be hearings all over again,” Moore said. “It took a long time to draft the Clean Air Ordinance the first time. There was a lot of public input and a lot of hearings. I expect that same thing to happen again.”

“Well I hope the city council gets to realize they made a mistake,” Gibson added. “I think the amendment could help.”

Restaurants around Elkhart went with the smoking ban. It’s not clear if an amendment to exempt bars from the ban would impact them.


Copyright © Wsbt

The Ready-Steady-Cook star and restaurateur is leading the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign calling for changes to the blanket ban which came into force in 2007.

Campaigners say the ban is “ripping the heart out” of British pubs, which are now closing at a rate of 40 a month, and want publicans to be allowed to tempt customers back by permitting smoking in some areas.

Around 250 pubs have signed up to the campaign and organisers hope thousands more will follow.

MPs from all three main parties have also leant their support.

Mr Worrall Thompson is one of 19 signatories to a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph calling for the ban to be relaxed.

He said: “The smoking ban has had an extraordinarily detrimental effect on pubs and clubs and you can understand why. They used to be bastions of adult entertainment where young and old could meet and chat over a pint without the health police looking over their shoulders… The legislation as it stands is excessive and I would like to see it amended.”

The campaign is aiming to secure amendments to the ban when it comes up for review in 2010. Options being put forward include allowing pubs to provide sealed smoking rooms with modern ventilation systems, repealing the ban in all pubs except those which serve food, and allowing publicans to choose whether their venues are smoking or non-smoking.

Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for the campaign, said: “This ban is absolutely ripping the heart out of the pub industry and it is hugely unpopular.

“There are tens of thousands of lifelong Labour supporters who are deeply, deeply angry about the ban and who will never vote Labour again while it still stands. It must be changed.”
Copyright © 2009 Telegraph

Bar owners resisting the smoking ban in the Netherlands have received financial, strategical and legal support from tobacco companies, research by NRC Handelsblad shows.

Ton Wurtz, treasurer of the foundation ‘Red de kleine horecaondernemer’ (Save the small hospitality entrepreneur), has admitted to receiving “about 50,000 euros per year” from the tobacco companies. Wurtz also holds biweekly strategy talks with Willem Jan Roelofs, the chairman of the cigarette industry foundation SSI, he said.

Smoking was banned in cafes, bars, hotels and restaurants in The Netherlands a year ago. Just before the ban went into effect on July 1, 2008, Wurtz, who has been the spokesperson for a foundation that stands up for smokers since 1993, and other seasoned tobacco lobbyists established the foundation to represent the interests of small cafe owners.

The smoking ban was primarily adopted to guarantee the right of employees to work in a smoke-free environment. But critics say small bars, with no employees except the owners, should be exempt from the ban. Several court cases are underway against cafes that defied the ban.

The law firm representing the small cafe owners has been negotiating with the tobacco industry about the possibility of it bankrolling future lawsuits challenging the smoking ban.

Tobacco companies can count on even less sympathy than smokers, so they often pay others to do their lobbying for them, said professor of political science Rinus van Schendelen.

“We are talking to several parties about financing a procedure, SSI amongst them,” Marco Gerritsen of the Van Diepen Van der Kroef law firm confirmed. “They haven’t promised anything yet.”

SSI’s is a collaboration between British American Tobacco (Pall Mall), Imperial Tobacco (Gauloises) and Japan Tobacco International (Camel); Philip Morris (Marlboro) left the group in 2005. Tobacco companies fear a decline of 5 percent of sales because of the smoking ban in bars. Roelofs: “That is a substantial loss in an already contracting market.” He denied the SSI has any intention to finance future court cases.

Next Friday is the court date for the appeals case against one cafe in Groningen, De Kachel. That bar was fined 1,200 euros for violating the ban in February. In a similar case against a bar in Breda, the appeals court in May ruled in favour of the owners, saying the national ban lacks the legal basis to impose it on small establishments without hired staff.

Van Diepen Van der Kroef represents both bars. The legal fees are being paid with contributions by the members of Wurz’ foundation. Bars and cafes each pay an annual fee of 250 euros. The foundation has so far received 250.000 in fees, but with legal expenses estimated at 350.000 euros, he said he is already 100.000 short.
Copyright © 2009 Nrc

President Barack Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act this week. The tobacco bill has been kicking around for a couple of years now and, while the primary focus is on giving the Food and Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco, the bill also has a number of provisions that impact the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan.

Here is what the new bill will do for the TSP:

First, the legislation will enable creation of a Roth plan. Under this plan, a TSP participant will be able to invest after-tax salary into an account that will grow without any additional tax liability on future earnings. This is different from the current TSP in that income tax is paid when money is withdrawn from the TSP as the initial investment was made from pre-tax dollars.

The Roth option may not be available in the TSP for another 1-2 years so don’t plan on using it right away.

Second, new federal employees will be automatically enrolled in the TSP. They will be able to opt out and get a refund within 90 days if they do not wish to participate. New federal employees would be automatically enrolled in the TSP’s G fund. The government would match the employee’s contributions up to 5 percent of salary. The matching contributions would start immediately

Third, A survivor benefit would allow spouses of deceased TSP participants to maintain TSP accounts.

Fourth, the legislation creates a mutual fund option that would allow participants to invest their retirement money in private-sector mutual funds.

There is no guarantee that this option will be implemented by the thrift board but it creates the authority to do so in the future. The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board would select the mutual funds that would be available to plan participants and extra costs would be paid by those that selected these mutual funds.
Copyright © 2009 Fedsmith

Within the next two years — and maybe even sooner — federal-military personnel with be able to invest in a Roth option within their Thrift Savings Plan. Congress has also give the green light for the TSP, the government’s in-house 401(k) plan, to permit employees to direct their pretax contributions to mutual funds outside of the giant TSP.

All of the above, plus some other TSP-related features, are part of the tobacco bill that cleared the Senate last week. Many other features that would have benefited federal workers and retirees were stripped by the Senate from the House version of the tobacco bill. Still, the TSP-related items that remain represent a major victory for the largest number of federal workers, most of whom are investing in the plan already.

Normally, the difference between the two bills would be subject to a joint House-Senate conference committee. However, after approving their plan, House leaders agreed in advance to accept whatever the Senate approved.

Having a Roth option means that federal-military investors will be able to invest, as usual, pretax dollars into funds offered by the TSP or, eventually, in outside mutual funds. The Roth features means they will invest after-tax dollars in the same fund or funds. The difference under Roth is that whatever they invest and earn from their investments will be tax-free — regardless of how much they have in their accounts — when they retire and start withdrawing from that account.

The Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, which manages the TSP, agreed to both of the new options, subject to approval by Congress and the White House. Both of the new options are part of the tobacco bill that could be signed into law as early as this week.

The new features would also permit the surviving spouses of federal TSP investors to leave their money within the federal program. Under current tax rules, survivors must withdraw that money from the TSP and roll it over into an outside IRA within a certain time period. One advantage of keeping it in the TSP is the option of investing in the supersafe G-fund, which invests in Treasury securities and has never posted a loss. Another plus is that the TSP’s administrative expenses are dramatically lower than most mutual funds.

New hires would be automatically enrolled in the TSP with 3 percent of salary going into the supersafe G-fund. The government would match those contributions up to 5 percent of salary. Those matching contributions would start immediately upon hire, not after a period of months as the plan works now. Workers could opt out of the TSP if they choose.

However, some employees believe they can do better investing outside of the funds offered in the TSP by diverting some or all of their biweekly contributions into active-managed, more aggressive funds. Unlike the TSP index funds, which mirror the performance of entire markets, many mutual funds concentrate on things like real estate, precious metals, health care or in specific country or regional funds.

Many financial planners say going outside the TSP subjects investors to greater risk and fees as high as 2 percent per year, far in excess of what the TSP offers or charges.

The drive to give feds the option to expand their investments within the TSP — but with money going into outside mutual funds — came from the fund families themselves, led by the formerly high-performing real estate sector. They would naturally like a piece of the $213.5 billion TSP fund. Currently federal investors are pumping $1.8 billion per month into the TSP. Outside mutual funds would love to have a piece of that action.
Copyright © 2009 Washingtontimes

Pennsylvania’s 14 state-owned universities cannot bar faculty members and coaches from smoking outdoors on campus, unless their unions agree to the restriction, a state labor panel ruled.

The ban in question was imposed by the State System of Higher Education in September, when a state law banning most indoor smoking took effect. System Chancellor John Cavanaugh said he interpreted the smoking law to extend to all campus grounds, because some classes are held outside.

The Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties, the union that represents 5,800 faculty members and coaches, filed an unfair labor practice complaint challenging the policy on grounds that any such change is subject to collective bargaining.

In a ruling last week, the state Labor Relations Board sided with the union. It ruled that the university system, like other public-sector employers, cannot impose such a ban on unionized employees without the consent of their collective-bargaining agents.

The system plans to appeal to state Commonwealth Court, spokesman Kenn Marshall said.

“We believe the action we took was still appropriate in accordance with the law,” he said.

So far, system officials have issued only warnings to people who smoke outdoors on campus. No deadline has been set for stepped-up enforcement that could subject scofflaws to fines.

The system includes Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney, Clarion, East Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Indiana, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield, Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock and West Chester universities. The universities enroll more than 112,500 students and employ about 13,000 people.

The labor board ruling applies only to unionized employees, and talks with other unions are continuing, Marshall said.

Copyright © 2009 Poconorecord

The federal opposition denies it’s hypocritical to block the government’s alcopops tax hike while proposing a rise in cigarette taxes.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s budget reply speech on Thursday night offered to replace the forecast $1.9 billion in savings that would come from paring back access to the rebate, with a 12.5 per cent increase in the tobacco excise – a tax of three cents per cigarette.

Asked if it was hypocritical to oppose a 70 per cent tax increase on pre-mixed drinks while supporting an increase in tobacco excise, opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said the coalition’s tax idea was more broadly based.

“If we were suggesting an increase in the tobacco excise on one brand of cigarettes, and not the whole range of tobacco products, that would be a different story,” he told reporters in Canberra on Friday.

Mr Dutton said tobacco companies, which made donations to the Liberal Party, were not happy with the coalition’s proposed excise increase on cigarettes.

“As I understand it, the tobacco companies make donations to both political parties in this country,” Mr Dutton said.

The Rudd government has indicated it will put forward its alcopops legislation again in the Senate, after it was blocked in the upper house in April.

But Mr Dutton believes the government may back down.

“I suspect there’s going to be a shift from the government on the alcopops tax,” he said.

“They understand now their bluff has been called completely in relation to this being a health measure.”

For more than one million of Croatia’s smokers, the world turned upside down on Wednesday.

After decades of a lifestyle in which cigarettes were taken for granted, a smoking ban in all public places took effect, causing a major shock for the smoking population, which amounts to one third of the country’s 4.4. million people.

Fines ranging from 1,000 kuna ($180) for smokers to 15,000 kuna, or three average monthly salaries, for owners of premises allowing it, made sure the law would be observed, at least in the early days.

“Today is day one and the club is empty. Everyone used to be smoking in here,” said Davor Grubic, who runs a small cafe near the popular Komedija theater in downtown Zagreb.

“They should give restaurants and bars an option to decide whether they want to host smokers or non-smokers. This is not going to work,” he predicted.

Cafes in downtown Zagreb, usually swarming with people, were deserted. Instead, smokers were puffing outside, wondering what to do when winter comes.

“I’ll probably get pneumonia because I will be spending most of the time smoking outside,” student Tijana Pivcevic said with a laugh.

In the past week, local newspapers have carried dozens of anti-smoking tips and no-smoking signs have been selling like hot cakes. Health officials say almost 13,000 people die of smoking in Croatia each year. Health Minister Darko Milinovic said it simply had to stop.

But most cafe and restaurant owners complained the ban would cripple their businesses and should have been delayed in times of recession, which has taken a heavy toll on the European Union candidate country.

“It is going to be bad for our business. We have more clients who are smokers than those who are not,” said Verica Mesic, a waitress at the Moka cafe.

Nacional weekly gave smokers food for thought.

“They say that about 50 percent of fatal diseases are caused by smoking. That means from now on we’ll be 50 percent immortal,” Renato Baretic, himself a smoker, wrote in his column.

“Thank God I am going away for a month in Austria, smokers’ last haven in the European Union,” he added. So far, Croatia is the only Balkan country where smoking indoors in public has been effectively outlawed.

Neighboring Serbia nominally banned it in 1995 but the law has never been implemented. Stricter new regulations are expected by the end of the year.

Bosnia — a country for which coffee and cigarettes are almost national symbols — seems even worse off, with a recent study showing some 37 percent of its people are active smokers, twice the European average.

© Copyright: Reuters