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

Commissioners forgo opportunity to repeal ban that takes effect Saturday

Salina city commissioners Monday discussed, but let pass, the opportunity to repeal or delay a comprehensive citywide ban on smoking in public places scheduled to take effect Saturday.

They took no action after commissioner Aaron Peck chastised the leading advocate for repeal for insinuating that voters would be too stupid to figure out their ballots if opponents petitioned for a public vote.

“Let’s face it, some voters are more or less likely to be confused, and or less sophisticated than others at the ballot,” Gary Swartzendruber, of Salina, told commissioners.

“I am asking for one of you to initiate the motion to repeal the ban. And I’m asking that at least three of you vote for a repeal,” he said.

If the ordinance were repealed, Swartzendruber argued, supporters of the ban would have to petition to keep the ordinance in force, “creating a clear choice for the voters — yes ban, or no ban. That’s all I’m asking.”

A group of Salinans against the stricter smoking ban already have collected signatures on a petition calling for a public vote on its repeal.

Anti-smoking advocates favor the ordinance set to take effect at the end of this week. It bans smoking in nearly all public places, including bars, bingo parlors, bowling alleys, hotels, motels and restaurants. It would replace the current ordinance, which bans smoking in restaurants except between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m.

One man’s opinion?

Peck said Swartzendruber’s argument that the new ordinance represented too much government intrusion and restriction on small businesses was not justification but an opinion. And Peck had stronger words for Swartzendruber’s comment about “less sophisticated” voters.

“It assumes those against the ordinance or those who happen to have an addiction to nicotine are somehow, in your own words, ‘less sophisticated,’ or as I read it, less intelligent than the rest of the community,” Peck said.

“That assumption is where the rest of your case is made. And I simply don’t buy it,” Peck said. “I don’t think we need to generalize that a particular segment of the community is somehow less sophisticated or not smart enough to figure out how the ballot reads.”

Swartzendruber was the leading opponent of the current restaurant smoking ordinance, passed by city commissioners seven years ago.

The opponents, who successfully petitioned for a public vote, also challenged at that time that the wording would be confusing for some voters.

Voters at that time were asked to vote “yes” to repeal the ordinance or “no” to retain the ordinance. The vote was 6,157 “yes” to 8,849 “no” — meaning the vote to repeal failed 41 percent to 59 percent and the ordinance remained in effect.

If opponents of the new ordinance submit their petitions calling for a vote, wording of the ballot would be similar.

Wording not confusing

A member of the public who spoke at Monday’s city commission meeting, Morea Charvat, 2606 Plantation, said she didn’t think there was much confusion about the ballot question seven years ago.

“There was a lot of public education prior to that. And I think people understood what they were voting on,” she said. “I am for protecting the health of our whole community.”

Commissioners let pass a suggestion from commissioner Tom Arpke, who wasn’t present but was participating by conference call, to delay implementation of the ordinance until the next general election, when it could be voted upon.

City Manager Jason Gage said it was possible to delay the ordinance that long, but in the meantime, the chances were good that either those for or against the ordinance would submit the necessary petitions to call for a special election.

“This may very well move on its own, regardless of what you, as a commission, choose to do at this time,” Gage said.

Source: Saljournal

In a recount of votes concerning Emporia’s smoking ban Tuesday, the “yes” votes stayed the same at 2,369, while the “no” votes lost two to come out at 2,361.

Lyon County clerk Tammy Vopat announced the results before the Board of Canvassers Tuesday after the recount was complete.

Vopat said the two lost votes could be because of a tally error or an error with a tabulator. The touch screen machines were all balanced, she said.

Michael Helbert, who filed for the recount on Monday, said he was disappointed with the results, but he accepted the outcome.

“The election is the election,” Helbert said. “Whether it was 6 votes or eight votes or one vote, majority rules. So whether we agree with it or not, we’re going to have to learn to live with it.”

Helbert posted a $250 bond to pay for the recount, which Vopat said ended up costing $120. The balance will be refunded to Helbert.

He originally filed for the recount because last week’s election was so close, he said, and he felt it was important to confirm the numbers.

Source: Emporiagazette

The owner of Fumar Cigars in Phoenix says he has collected 6,000 cigars to deliver to U.S. troops serving in Iraq.

David Haddad said he packed his collected cigars into a package for the overseas troops and is personally traveling to Iraq to present his gift as “a little bit of hospitality,” The Arizona Republic reported Wednesday.

“It’s an honor to the heroes … because they do what they do (in war) to make it possible so that I get to do what I do … My company offers … cigars to resorts all over the world,” Haddad said Wednesday. “It’s to bring a little bit of hospitality to the troops.”

Fumar Cigars Director of Operations Bradley Meduna said the cigar package has an estimated value of nearly $30,000.

Haddad left Wednesday to travel with the USO and said he expects to return to Phoenix on April 18.

He told the Republic the cigars, donated by 50 businesses and individuals, will be the stars of a scheduled cigar party in Iraq.

“It will be the only cigar party ever done in a war zone,” Haddad said.

Nevada lawmakers are considering a bill that would gut large portions of the voter-approved indoor smoking ban, reviving a long simmering fight between health advocates and business owners.

In a hearing Friday, cardiologists squared off with slot route operators and cancer victims sparred with tavern owners over the proposed legislation that would allow businesses to wall off indoor smoking areas and adults-only smoking bars to serve food.

Senate Bill 372, sponsored by the Judiciary Committee at the request of Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford, D-North Las Vegas, would also prevent local health districts from enforcing the smoking ban and counties from passing any more stringent anti-smoking laws.

The measure essentially guts the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act passed by voters in 2006, health advocates argued.

“We oppose (the bill) because it negates our ability to protect our community from secondhand smoke, it rolls back significant public health advances and it negates the will of the voter,” Washoe County Health Officer Dr. Mary Anderson testified Friday.

But advocates of the measure, including bar and tavern owners and slot-route operators, said they’ve carefully tailored the bill to ensure it protects the original intent of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, to protect children and families from secondhand smoke.

“Contrary to what opponents will tell you, this bill continues to protect children,” lobbyist Michael Alonso said.

The Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits smoking in restaurants, forced bar owners throughout the state to decide between serving food and allowing smoking, a choice that Las Vegas bar owner Joe Wilcox likened to choosing between a “train wreck and a plane crash.”

The act also prohibited smoking at slot machines in grocery and convenience stores.

In the wake of the ban, taverns have closed, slot-route operators have seen revenues plummet and the tavern industry has had to lay off hundreds of employees, according to testimony from industry representatives.

Sean Higgins, general counsel for Herbst Gaming said the company has lost $50 million in the wake of the smoking ban’s passage. He also blamed the ban on the closure of Rite Aid pharmacies across the state and the loss of grocery store employees.

“Was the smoking ban as passed the sole and absolute cause of this? Yes it was,” he said.

Under the bill, businesses would have to provide a completely enclosed smoking area with a separate ventilation system. And only bars that denied entrance to minors could allow smoking.

“Our economy is collapsing, and we need to save what we have,” Horsford said.

But health advocates say the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act is working by protecting the public from the dangers of secondhand smoke. They questioned whether the smoking ban could be blamed for revenue and job losses amid a dire economic recession.

The most dramatic moment of the hearing came when Lee Radtke, a survivor of throat cancer, removed the protective covering from his neck to display for lawmakers an open hole in his throat.

“I never smoked,” Radtke said, speaking through an electronic voice box after telling of his bout with throat cancer which cost him his own voice box. “But I was around people who smoked. And this is what happened to me.

“I don’t want anybody to ever have to go through what I did.”

Opponents also criticize the measure for taking enforcement power away from counties to give it to the state.

State Health Officer Dr. Mary Guinan testified the state health division is ill-equipped to provide necessary enforcement. It would require the hiring of five new officers at a cost of the $315,000, she said. Despite the potential cost, the bill did not have a fiscal note.

“It is likely that for reasons of geography and limited resources, (enforcement) may not be done in a timely manner, resulting in a possible health hazards,” Guinan said.

Under the state constitution, the Legislature is prohibited from amending, repealing or changing any laws passed by voters. To get around that prohibition, the bill is written so the new regulations wouldn’t take effect until Dec. 9.

Opponents of the measure said that flouts the intent of the constitution to protect a voter-approved law for a full three years. They argued lawmakers should not be able to consider changes until after the three-year period.

But it’s true. It seems that at last the UK smoking ban has been amended to legally allow indoor smoking rooms and lounges, possibly with bar serveries in the same room.

Before you rush off to chuck ashtrays back on the tables there is, inevitably, some bad news. The amendment applies only to the ExCel Centre in London’s Docklands for the duration of next week’s G20 Summit.

A source within the company organising the G20 Summit made the following statement: “Although smoking is banned within work places in the UK and has been a vigorously enforced Labour policy, it is being allowed at the G20 summit – indeed, there is a smoking lounge.”

Clearly these instructions have come directly from Number 10. If the crud hits the fan over this we’ll no doubt be subjected to the usual lectures about the risks of terrorism. In reality there’s an awful lot riding on this Summit, perhaps Brown’s future premiership, where the important negotiations still take place behind the scenes in nostalgic smoke-filled rooms.

And just like a modern day Pub conversation the emphasis of any prospective deal would soon be lost if foreign rulers and key personnel were repeatedly diving outside for a fag.

However what’s not so clear is the precise mechanism by which Brown’s government has been able to set aside the smoking ban, and this is where it gets really interesting.

ASH-UK were understandably spitting blood once they got wind of this betrayal. They don’t care if the global economy disintegrates heralding a dark new order of anarchy, just so long as nu-world pubs ban smoking. ASH have a direct hot line to the Dept of Health and quickly leapt for the Bat-phone.

The Department of Health told them “The simple fact is that the Health Act 2006 does not make any exemptions for diplomats or diplomatic events.”

“The relevant local authority (Newham) is responsible for enforcement for premises within their borough. If there is a breach of the regulations the local authority enforcement officers will need to consider appropriate enforcement action.”

Wh-aaat? They’re ‘aving a laugh aren’t they?

You can just imagine the scene when Newham’s uniformed anti-smoking gestapo strut into the G20 Summit in their polished jackboots:

“Name?”

“I am The Emir of Kuwait.”

“And I’m Osama Bleedin’ Bin-Laden. If I had a quid for every time I’ve heard the old Emir of Kuwait routine. You’re nicked sonny!”

It’s never gonna happen. Special Branch would send these jumped-up little Adolfs packing before they reached the outer perimeter. An anti-terrorism card trumps anti-smoking any day.

However the fact remains that our beloved government must be using some kind of legal mechanism to stay on the right side of their own law. We’ll have to wait for confirmation but it’s being reported that there has been a covert amendment to the smoking ban legislation.

What’s so far held this ban together is that it’s been more water tight than a duck’s rear end. ASH made sure of this, along with the collusion of our own Industry Leaders who fought for the ‘level playing field’ – i.e. the blanket ban with no exemptions for private-members clubs. This made the ban completely unassailable. No exemptions, no amendments, no further discussion.

But it’s all lies. This proves an outright ban is NOT set in stone. They could amend the smoking ban tomorrow at the stroke of a pen. If they can do it for a bunch of foreigners they can do it for us British folk who pay their wages, pamper them with outlandish expenses and lavish them with golden pension pots.

For the moment this is just a crack in the veneer that makes this nasty, socially divisive piece of anti-pub legislation appear to be stronger than it really is. When the industry eventually unites as one alliance to take advantage of the situation we could prise open that crack and tear a giant hole right through it.

Sadly I can’t see any immediate prospect of the Trade uniting.

Try to imagine the power and political clout this industry COULD wield if it came to it’s senses and we got all the customers on board. Yet we allow squalid little groups like ASH to control our affairs, while the temperance league waits in the wings to usher us all meekly into Nu-Labour’s gas chambers.

We approach ignorant government ministers on bended knee, begging bowl in trembling hand, whispering pathetic pleas for a scrap to be generously thrown in our direction. Why, oh why should we be reduced to this?

It’s like the hanging, chain-clad prisoner in Life of Brian – “Crucifixion! Best thing they ever did for us. If nothing else, it’s taught me to respect the Romans.”

What little fight we had is fading while those who believe pubs are better places now all the riff-raff have gone seem to hold sway. They remain convinced that one day a better class of customer is going to walk into our pubs and start flashing the cash.

And what do they suggest will fuel this metamorphosis? More Nu-Labour legislation. Great. The very thing that has brought this once proud industry to it’s knees.

Don’t tell me this pious government meddling is here to stay and there’s nothing we can do about it. Tell that to the Dutch, or the Germans who have proved what can be achieved with just a little courage and solidarity.

So next time the defeatist “let’s just get on with it” brigade tell you the smoking ban will never be amended just remind them it already has.

Source: Thepublican

Public health concerns trumped property rights arguments Tuesday as the Teton District Board of Health unanimously approved a countywide smoking ban.

Seven appointed board members listened to about 45 minutes of public comment before approving the measure called the Teton District Smokefree Air Rule of 2009.

Julia Heemstra, program manager for Teton County Tobacco Prevention, and her supporters have worked for more than two years to pass a smoking ban.

“This is landmark,” she said after the meeting. “It sets the highest precedent. The fact that the board of health decided to move forward themselves is incredibly courageous.”

The rule is designed to “protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public places and places of employment.” It applies to all public areas, including bars, restaurants, buildings used by the general public, and common areas of hotels, motels and sports arenas.

Among exemptions are private residences, except when childcare is involved, and hotel and motel rooms rented to guests. Private clubs also are excluded, except when the public is invited for an event.

The board also included a caveat for tobacco shops such as Tobacco Row.

A person or business owner violating the rule faces a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $750 or jail time.

The rule takes affect 60 days from Tuesday – the end of May.

The board began pursuing a smoking ban through the health board last fall. Attempts at the Jackson Town Council level had failed because councilors thought an ordinance was unnecessary with so few places permitting smoking. County commissioners lack ordinance authority for such a regulation. The measure was mostly symbolic for pubs and eateries: Only the Virginian Saloon allows patrons to smoke.

County health boards, municipalities and states nationwide have taken up the issue in recent years with mixed results. A statewide regulation died in the Wyoming Legislature last month.

Jackson Councilor Bob Lenz said on Tuesday night that the council didn’t take action on a smoking ban in the past because so many businesses were already smoke-free. He worried about regulating places of employment.

“Aren’t those private?” he said. “I kinda liked it the way the town had it.”

Most of those who spoke Tuesday at the health board meeting supported the rule, but those against it said property owners should be allowed to determine what goes on in their buildings.

“I don’t think it’s the place of the government to make the decision,” said Richard Choate of Tobacco Row.

Virginian complex manager Mike Kraft said businesses should have final say and customers can just avoid the properties if they don’t want to inhale someone else’s smoke.

“They don’t have to come in if they don’t want to,” he said.

Throughout the six-month discussion, the health board argued the rule was designed to improve community wellness.

“I’m so excited the board passed it unanimously,” board member and rule instigator Dr. Brent Blue said. “Tobacco is the single greatest cause of irreversible disease.”

County health manager Terri Gregory provided additional statistics at Tuesday’s meeting. Her staff collected literature and background material for more than a year to support a smoking regulation.

She cited scientific evidence showing that cigarette smoke is a Class A carcinogen and a surgeon general’s report saying smoking harms all organs of the body.

“The role of public health is to prevent disease and promote public health,” Gregory said.

County health officials posted multiple public notices and extended a public comment period beyond the legally required 45 days. Board members also voted to make slight changes to the initial rule to avoid anticipated public objections. One example was the decision to strike wording that the “need to breathe smoke-free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.”

Opponents question the constitutionality of the restriction.

“They had their mind set on what they were going do, and it doesn’t matter how many comments came in,” Dave Loy said as he sat at the Virginian Saloon on Tuesday afternoon. “They’re not elected officials – where do they get off?”

Virginian Saloon and liquor store manager Max Anderson said a vote before the public or a decision from the Town Council, representing the public, seemed more fair.

In previous meetings, health board member David Shlim wondered if the board had the authority to vote on a rule because members are appointed rather than elected. He said Tuesday he had changed his mind.

“The fact that the majority is [voluntarily smoke-free] shows how popular the idea is in the county,” Shlim said.

Wyoming statutes allow boards of health to use rules to protect public health, but this is the first time the authority has been used to regulate smoking. Teton County health board attorney Keith Gingery said other states have allowed health boards to proceed with smoking restrictions using similar rule language.

In 60 days, Jackson’s only affected bar will have to change its “The Virginian Saloon is a smoking establishment” sign to “No smoking allowed.”

On Tuesday afternoon, customers paused between drags to argue personal and property rights.

The rule “ain’t protecting me,” Howdy Litzelman said as he snuffed out his butt in a shiny black ash tray. “I’m going to smoke until the day that I die.”

Ralph Spooner asked what happened to Jackson’s Western mantra of freedom and “wide-open America.”

“They advertise the old cowboy way, but when you get here, it’s not like that anymore,” Spooner said. “They’ve taken it all away.”

Source: Jacksonholenews