Renegade Holdings Inc. received some breathing room last week — at least for the short term — regarding its cigarette brands.

In a case that could affect at least 520 Triad employees of smaller tobacco manufacturers, a U.S. District Court judge approved a stay Wednesday that prevents the Food and Drug Administration from enforcing a rule it adopted March 19.

The rule does not allow a manufacturer to use a brand name it began marketing after Jan. 1, 1995, if that name is also used as a brand by another company for a nontobacco product.

The FDA planned to begin enforcing the rule June 22. FDA officials could not be reached for comment yesterday.

Examples include Renegade’s Tuscon, Tracker and Barton brands — all registered as trademarks after September 2004. In addition to the cigarette brands, there is an automobile brand named Tuscon, a handheld computer for playing bingo called Tracker, and an alcoholic beverage called Barton.

Such tobacco brands would be considered as “misbranded” by the government, with products subject to seizure and destruction. There also could be civil and criminal penalties against manufacturers and sellers of those products.

“This was a major victory for our little company against the FDA’s heavy-handed control of the industry,” Mike Mebane, the president of Renegade, said yesterday. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co. of Oklahoma joined Renegade in the lawsuit, filed May 7.

Renegade has 140 employees in Mocksville.

Also affected is General Tobacco Co., with 120 employees in Mayodan, and Commonwealth Brands Inc., with about 260 employees in Reidsville.

Congress denied a similar regulatory effort by the FDA in 1996, saying that the agency did not have oversight over tobacco. After the FDA was given that oversight last year, it essentially revived its 1996 regulation.

Renegade said it could face claims of $3.5 million for goods that could be designated as misbranded. It also would be forced to write off $1.2 million in finished goods and raw materials.

“These factors will force Renegade to stop doing business and close its doors,” the company said.

The vast majority of cigarette brands used by Philip Morris USA, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Lorillard Inc. debuted before Jan. 1, 1995 — thus they are not subject to the rule.

However, for most manufacturers not participating in the initial Master Settlement Agreement, their brands debuted after that date. The plaintiffs said that the regulation, if permitted, should be enforceable after March 19, 2010, not Jan. 1, 1995, thus not giving the major manufacturers a competitive advantage by limiting, if not eliminating, the product mix of many discounters.

Mebane said that “it would take an impossible amount of time and cost to attempt to obtain the regulatory approvals necessary to introduce a new brand. There are so many road blocks that regulators would erect that I doubt you would ever get one approved.”

The judge requested that the FDA consider amending the rule. If the FDA chooses to enforce the original or amended regulation, it must give Renegade 90 days notice of its action.

Casey Francis, a spokeswoman for Commonwealth, said that the company “would like to think that the industry as a whole will receive a notice of 90 days before the FDA commences on any action.”

“However, it is one month away, and we still have heard nothing.” Francis said.

By Richard Craver
Journalow, May 25, 2010

RICHMOND, Va. – Three small tobacco companies say a new FDA regulation favors Big Tobacco by imposing “Draconian restrictions” on commercial speech that could drive small tobacco companies out of business. The regulation bars use of cigarette brands that share a name with non-tobacco products.

Small companies, such as plaintiff Renegade Tobacco, will not be able to keep selling its “Tucson” brand cigarettes, because Hyundai uses the term for cars, according to the federal complaint.

But Big Tobacco companies already have cemented rights to their products, such as Marlboro and Camel, and so will not be affected.

Renegade Tobacco, Alternative Brands, and Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco say the Product Name Restriction regulation will restrict “the ability of cigarette manufacturers to engage in commercial speech using their federally registered trademarks, including brand names that have been in use for years.”

The regulation will impose civil and criminal penalties on manufacturers who sell cigarette brands that share a brand name with non-tobacco products – and in some instances these manufacturers could face jail time, according to the complaint.

Big Tobacco protected from the new restrictions because the FDA provides immunity for brand names that were in effect on Jan. 1, 1995, so long as there were no non-tobacco companies using the same name.

This immunity protects most of Big Tobacco’s major brands, the plaintiffs say.

“The practical effect of this regulation will be to unfairly drive the relatively new, small cigarette manufacturers out of business by banning the use of their established brand names, while protecting the big tobacco companies that have long dominated – and that continue to dominate – the cigarette market in the United States,” according to the complaint.

The regulation is to take effect on June 22.

The plaintiffs sued the FDA and Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of Food and Drugs, seeking an injunction preventing enforcement of the regulation. They also want a declaration that the regulation violates due process and the First Amendment.

The companies are represented by William Hurd with Troutman Sanders

By RYAN ABBOTT

Courthousenews,  April 28, 2010

There are fewer retail outlets for tobacco products in Finland than before. When the sale of tobacco became subject to a licence, many businesses opted to stop selling it rather than go through the expense and bother of acquiring a licence. The trend is for even greater restrictions on the availability of cigarettes.

New legislation came into effect last summer, requiring all businesses selling tobacco products to apply for a special licence. A number of businesses, especially restaurants and cafes, preferred to stop selling cigarettes altogether.

“It’s not worth it. There are costs, and filling out the application is fairly painstaking,” says Vilhelmiina Ihamäki, who works at the Meritähti restaurant in Helsinki.

Before the new regulations went into effect, the Ministry of Social affairs and Health expected applications from more than 30,000 businesses for tobacco licences. Ultimately only about 10,000 applications came. In Helsinki a licence costs 100 euros, in addition to an enforcement fee of 150 euros a year.

“As there is not much of a profit margin in tobacco sales, many businesses have calculated that it is no longer worth their while”, says Ismo Tuominen, an official at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health,

Further Restrictions Possible

More restrictions on tobacco sales could be on the way. Parliament is considering legislation that would require that tobacco products be sold from beneath the counter, and should not be openly on display.

“In some countries there is talk of restricting sales of tobacco to a very narrow system, such as pharmacies, or in Finland, to sales outlets of Alko [the Finnish alcohol retail monopoly]. It has also been suggested that buying tobacco might be restricted to those with a licence. That is, if a person wants to smoke, he or she should register for permission to buy tobacco,” Tuominen explains

Discouraging smoking is seen to be in society’s interest, as treatment of tobacco-related diseases is very expensive. Health officials have a long way to go – about one in five Finns over 15 years of age continue to smoke daily.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jan. 20 – Japanese stocks fell for a third day, led by brokerages after Credit Suisse Group AG lowered its investment rating on the industry.

Nomura Holdings Inc., Japan’s largest brokerage, sank 3.8 percent and Daiwa Securities Group Inc. lost 2.4 percent after Credit Suisse cut its rating to “market weight.” Securities companies had the biggest decline among the Topix index’s 33 industry groups. Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., operator of Japan’s largest fleet of iron-ore ships, dropped 2.1 percent on concern China’s government will rein in stimulus to prevent a bubble.

The Nikkei 225 Stock Average fell 0.3 percent to close at 10,737.52 in Tokyo. The broader Topix dropped 0.5 percent to 944.72, erasing a 0.7 percent advance. Stocks on the Topix trade at 37 times estimated earnings this year, more than twice as expensive as their U.S. and European counterparts.

“Current share prices have fully reflected an expected surge in earnings,” said Yoshihiro Ito, senior strategist at Okasan Asset Management Co., which oversees the equivalent of $8.2 billion. “There remains uncertainty, and the market climate will likely be turbulent into March.”

The Topix, which had the lowest return among benchmark indexes in the world’s 20 largest stock markets in 2009, has risen the most this year as investors bet a weaker yen will boost earnings.

Companies in the gauge are projected to turn profitable in 2010 after posting an average loss of 40 yen per share in the past 12 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Earnings per share are estimated to gain 64 percent for companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index in the U.S. and 353 percent for those in Europe’s Dow Jones Stoxx 600 Index.

By Masaki Kondo and Toshiro Hasegawa

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Miller points out that is the main issue.

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

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

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

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

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

For the first time since the city of Savage adopted its tobacco ordinance, all of the 17 licensed tobacco retailers passed compliance checks that were conducted Dec. 9.

“This is nice to see,” said Colleen Johnson, code enforcement officer. “I’m pleased that all the licensed businesses complied (with the tobacco ordinance).”

Police conduct unannounced compliance checks on retailers that sell tobacco at least once a year, per state law. Two stores failed the last tobacco sting conducted by police in February.

When they conduct compliance checks, police send a teenager into the store with valid identification stating that they are under 18 years old, explained Capt. Dave Muelken. If the teen is carded and the sale is refused, the store passes the check. If the teen is sold tobacco, the business is cited for failure to comply with tobacco laws.

This year, for the first time ever, the city sponsored a training seminar in an attempt to educate the employees of retailers that sell tobacco and alcohol products, Muelken said. The training is done in the hope of educating clerks about checking identification, which in turn will lead to zero violations when compliance checks are done.

“There’s no trickery involved in the compliance checks,” Muelken added. “We are looking for compliance, and that’s why we offer training in advance of the checks.”

The new training sessions seemed to work in this case, Muelken said. The employees were observed by an officer scanning the IDs when scanners were available. In all 17 cases the employees looked at the IDs and denied the sale.

Retailers in Savage that are licensed to sell tobacco include: Both BP gas stations, Cub Foods, Rainbow Foods, Neisen’s Sports Bar, Valley Oil, both Walgreens stores, Dan Patch Liquor, Marketplace Liquor, Savage Super USA, all three SuperAmerica stores, Kwik Trip and both Holiday Station stores.

The city has been conducting tobacco compliance checks since 1995. Since then, 35 tobacco ordinance violations have been handed out to licensed tobacco retailers in Savage, Johnson said.

Earlier this year, alcohol compliance checks were done for the first time at the licensed liquor retailers, of which three businesses failed.

Police plan on conducting at least one round of both alcohol and tobacco compliance checks in 2010, Muelken said.
By Shawn Hogendorf
December 17, 2009

The Citizens for Smoke Free Nodaway County has certainly been working hard for the expansion of the Maryville Clean Indoor Act that was passed in 2003, which banned smoking in restaurants. Although proposed for the welfare of workers in business establishments, we must question if this is the real aim of such an initiative, or it was a push for an unrelated, particular interest upon the city.

Earlier this term, we issued an opinion piece urging Northwest to take the middle-line approach for the smoking ban on Campus, that is to go into effect next year. However, we still respected the right of the institution, essentially as a business receiving a large portion of public funding, to provide what it thought was best for its consumers. This issue is fundamentally different, though.

A government imposed smoking ban ultimately takes away the choice of any private business to conduct and make decisions that best suits what kind of services they provide, and the best way to provide them for their customers.

Certainly we know the health risks to smoking. And we cannot deny a person’s right to take his or her business to an establishment that is smoke-free if desired. The consumer always has the choice to receive or decline any service.

If you do not like drinking in a place that is smoky, do not drink in such a place. If you do not want to work for a business that allows smoking, then you have the right to work somewhere else, and all the more power to you. But do not force your particular opinions on how a private business should best serve all its patrons in whole.

The cost of a small business, the backbone to Maryville’s economy, to comply to this ban will be too great of a toll for many owners- building a patio or deck outside or having one already in place that must be inspected for safety standards. Although we do not believe a smoking ban would hurt sales by any means, since every area would be restricted the same, it would still cause a huge burden for implementation.

At the end of the day, it comes down to choice and government regulation. Is it necessary for the government to step into the way a business operates in this instance? If it were the case that employers were having a hard time reeling in customers or receiving applications, surely those employers would implement their own bans as they saw fit. And several businesses have willingly done so.

True, the tyranny of the majority may be detrimental to a society, but the tyranny of the minority, in which a small faction begins to push and implement policies, is far worse.

October 22, 2009

Shamefully, Atlantic City council members and state legislators continue to expose dealers and other casino employees to serious health risks by refusing to ban smoking on casino floors.

The legislature, after allowing casinos to escape the statewide indoor smoking ban in 2006, has refused to close this loophole. Lawmakers continually have chosen casino balance sheets over the health of the average Joe. But this is a moral, not economic issue: What amount of money makes it acceptable to put people’s lives at risk?

We know the answer: None.

And that’s why there’s a tobacco stain on New Jersey’s soul.

The Atlantic City council has a second chance to do the right thing and pass a casino smoking ban immediately. The council, when it rescinded a short-lived ban last October, said it would revisit the issue in 12 months. The debate should start at tonight’s council meeting, although there is no mention of the issue on the agenda.

Not that there’s much reason to hope for a ban. Council president William “Speedy” Marsh, who favors one, says: “I don’t see where many minds have changed on the council.”

For some reason, when it comes to casinos, New Jersey’s elected officials ignore the overwhelming scientific evidence detailing the devastating effects of second-hand smoke and the astronomical health care costs linked to it: New Jersey spends $3.17 billion annually in smoking-related health care costs.

The state banned smoking from restaurants and bars and all public buildings (including the Statehouse) to protect patrons and waitresses and bartenders and the rest of us. The law protects even hypocritical legislators, who make sure they work in a smoke-free environment.

Secondhand smoke kills an estimated 46,000 Americans from heart disease every year, according to the CDC and the American Heart Association. But blowing smoke in someone’s face is okay when that someone is a dealer or casino worker.

New Jersey casino floors are 75 percent non-smoking and 25 percent smoking. But partitions, required by law, are inadequate or non-existent. So is enforcement. Walls are a lousy defense, anyway. Smoke is disobedient. It doesn’t stay put. And science shows that filtration systems are insufficient and that concentrating tobacco smoke in a confined area actually makes it deadlier.

Casinos, struggling in the recession, insist a smoking ban will drive away more gamblers, leading to further job cuts. But nobody knows how gamblers will respond. Maybe the ban will encourage more nonsmokers to gamble. Maybe smokers, already accustomed to restrictions, will adjust and simply take it outside.

When New Jersey was passing the indoor smoking ban in 2006, the economy was chugging along. Still, the casinos lobbied for — and received — an exemption. That convinces us that, as far as they’re concerned, there never will be an acceptable time for a smoking ban. Restaurant and bar lobbies incorrectly predicted doom for those industries, which have been unaffected — if not helped — by the ban.

Opponents of the ban insist gambling and drinking and smoking go together. Well, actually, they don’t. Studies have found that the majority of gamblers don’t drink and 82 percent of them don’t smoke.

Through all of the debate, one argument remains indisputable: Second-hand smoke kills.

But in New Jersey, cash trumps cancer risks.

“A 100 percent smoking ban would be catastrophic,” said Mark Juliano, CEO of Trump Entertainment Resorts. “Right now, we can’t face another negative.”

Since when is saving lives a negative?

October 21, 2009 NJ

JEDDAH: At a time when anti-smoking campaigners are calling for an increase in cigarette duty to discourage smokers, a source at the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) said there would be no increase in cigarette tariffs.

The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the GCC is committed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and that this commitment does not allow GCC countries to increase cigarette duty by over 100 percent, which is already implemented. “In order to increase it, we have to be involved in negotiation with more than 120 member countries of the WTO,” he said.

He added that a meeting of GCC ministries of finance, custom and health is to be held next month to discuss the issue.

Newspapers in the Kingdom recently reported a SR1 increase on packets of cigarette, an increase of 20 percent. Asa’ad Jawhar, an analyst, said the slight increase would not stop smokers from buying cigarettes.

“The price is not high enough to discourage smokers from buying cigarettes. If we compare the prices of cigarettes in the Kingdom with European countries and the United States, we will find that our prices are 50 percent cheaper than the price in EU countries and the US. In Italy, for example, the price of a pack of cigarettes is the equivalent of SR23,” he said.

“There is no proper action being taken in the Kingdom to put an end to smoking,” he said, “most decisions on issues are not implemented. For example, the decision to ban smoking in public places has still not been implemented. The increase in the price of cigarettes has not been enough to stop minors from buying them. Moreover, the media has not played a role in increasing awareness about the dangers of smoking.” He added that smokers are ill and addicted to tobacco.

Suleiman Al-Sabbi, secretary general of the Anti-Smoking Society in Riyadh, said the increase is a result of the economic situation. He added that huge awareness campaigns have been undertaken to highlight the dangers of smoking, yet the implementation of rules banning smoking is very difficult. He further urged the authorities to increase cigarette duty by at least 50 percent.

“There are studies conducted in the UK and the US that said a 100 percent increase in the price of cigarettes will reduce the number of smokers by 30 percent. I know one person who stopped smoking because of the SR1 increase,” he added.

© Arab News 16 October 2009

EAST PEORIA — Puffing in East Peoria now may be subject to more regulations than anywhere else in the state.

With the recent adoption of an amended liquor code that specifically references a ban on smoking in public places, the city conceivably has three laws covering the prohibition.

First is the state’s Smoke Free Illinois Act, which beginning Jan. 1, 2008, sought to end smoking in bars, restaurants and all other places open to the public or places of employment.

Second is the city’s smoking ordinance, which closely mirrors the state act and was adopted after the state ban was approved. Cities that created individual ordinances to regulate smoking once the ban took effect were allowed, under the state law, to keep 100 percent of the fines for violations, rather than splitting the proceeds with the state.

But the state’s law – and thus, ordinances around the state that were adopted verbatim to keep the revenue generated by citations local – initially contained peculiar language that resulted in confused enforcement efforts and legal challenges.

That atmosphere caused East Peoria and other municipalities to attempt a third approach: citing bar owners and bartenders under catch-all provisions in local liquor codes.

Authorities usually pursued bartenders or owners for failure to report a crime, which could result in punishments ranging from fines to suspension or revocation of liquor licenses.

But East Peoria’s sole attempt at punishing a bartender for letting a patron smoke in April 2008 failed, largely because the city’s catch-all provision in its liquor code differs significantly from similar passages in other municipalities.

The East Peoria code demanded reports of “any disturbance, argument, fight or other tumultuous conduct occurring on or about the licensed premises.”

Stacey Warner, a bartender at the Valley Tap at 1507 Meadow St., was cited for failing to report an incident to police because a patron in the tavern was smoking on April 26, 2008. Tazewell County Circuit Judge Glenn Collier, however, found that the wording of East Peoria’s ordinance didn’t allow for such a citation.

Collier ultimately ruled that, “Smoking is not an act which falls within the meaning of a ‘disturbance’ as that word is construed by the context of the provision within which it appears.” He dismissed Warner’s case.

The code was recently amended to fix that omission. The City Council has approved the insertion of specific language about the smoking ban, possibly the first time such language has been incorporated into a local liquor code in the state.

“Clearly, the intent of the ordinance is to make sure that the holders of liquor licenses are required to report incidents of smoking,” said assistant East Peoria city attorney Mike Tibbs. “If they fail to report smoking . . . then that is a violation of the liquor code and . . . can have implications for their liquor license.”

The liquor code is once again considered a viable avenue of enforcement for the ban in East Peoria, and perhaps one with a greater chance of curbing any illegal puffing.

“I think the liquor code does have more teeth,” Tibbs said.

But East Peoria Police Chief Ed Papis said the renewed ability to cite bartenders and owners under the liquor code doesn’t reflect any type of push to enhance enforcement efforts.

“All this was simply putting the smoking ban into the (liquor) ordinance,” he said. “I’ve made it very clear on the record that we don’t purport to be smoking Nazis – we’re call driven and we respond to complaints.”

By MATT BUEDEL (mbuedel@pjstar.com)
OF THE JOURNAL STAR

Smokers will have a new incentive to quit starting Thursday, when the cost of a pack of cigarettes in San Francisco increases 20 cents.

Money generated from the new city fee will pay for cleaning up cigarette butts that are illegally discarded on streets and in gutters, Mayor Gavin Newsom said Tuesday.

Smokers already pay an 87-cent state tax for cigarettes. A federal tax increased 62 cents April 1, bringing the total to $1.01. Some packs cost as much as $7 in The City.

Newsom originally proposed a 33-cent fee, but reduced it to 20 cents after a final study found that the cost to clean up butts was lower than expected. The City spends $7.5 million annually on cleanup, a Health Economics Consulting Group study said.

Businesses and residents aren’t pleased with the price increase. Some smokers say the market, not the government, should dictate cigarette prices. Business owners fear that folks will travel outside The City for their packs — or, at least, will stop shopping at their store — due to the added fee.

“It’s no good. We’re going to lose business,” said Ali Mohammed, 26, the manager of New York Tobacco on Grove Street near the Civic Center.

Not only will sales decrease, Mohammed said unwitting customers will blame shopkeepers for the price hike.

The Board of Supervisors unanimously embraced the new fee in July as a way to help The City close one of its largest deficits in history.

Newsom said Tuesday that California is 32nd in the nation in tobacco taxes. The last state tax increase was in 1998, he said.

“The fact is, taxpayers shouldn’t be burdened with the cost of [cleaning up cigarette butts],” Newsom said, adding that the butts account for the most litter on streets and beaches nationwide.

Under state law, San Francisco cannot tax cigarettes, but it can charge a fee to recoup costs incurred by trash cleanup.

Newsom is also considering a new fee on large retailers who sell calorically sweetened beverages such as soda, saying studies show that they cause obesity-related diseases that weigh on city health care costs.


maldax@sfexaminer.com
By: Mike Aldax
September 30, 2009

THE HAGUE – The Dutch government vowed Friday to change the law to keep bars smoke free after it suffered two successive defeats in court against bar owners challenging a smoking ban.

A cabinet statement said the government would introduce changes to legislation in order to make sure that “a uniform obligation” applied to all.

Dutch bar owners won two victories earlier this year in their fight against a smoking ban on their premises.

Two different courts found that the law, aimed at protecting staff from second-hand smoke inhalation, unfairly discriminated against small, one-man operations that employed none.

Several thousand small bars and cafes in the Netherlands united late last year to defy the ban that entered into force in July 2008, creating a joint legal defence fund, arguing they lacked the floor space and money to erect separate smoking-only areas.

The cabinet said the planned changes would make allowances for the introduction of “innovative air sytstems” if they could be proven effective enough to be an alternative to a dedicated smoking area in small bars.

The July 19 expansion of the smoking ban to include restaurants, cafes, teahouses and bars has resulted in a significant drop in cigarette sales, which were 5.4 percent lower in July 2009 than a year ago.

According to data from the Tobacco and Alcohol Market Regulatory Agency, or TAPDK, the July decrease in sales amounts to 89,478,000 fewer packages of cigarettes sold.

Professor Elif Dağlı, the chair of the National Committee on Cigarettes and Health, or SSUK, said the implementation of similar laws in other countries has been shown to reduce consumption by 8 to 10 percent in the first six months. In the United States, she said, long-term decreases in sales have climbed to 27 percent.

“A 5.4 percent decrease in the first stage is much lower than our target but inspires hope for the future,” said Dağlı, who added that the organization believes the results will improve in a few years through the continued implementation of the ban.

“Cigarettes are a product that affect lung health very negatively. Reduced consumption is pleasing for us, but it is not enough because there is no safe dose of cigarettes: each one increases the risk to the lungs,” said professor Muzaffer Metintaş, the chair of the Turkish Thoracic Society.

Three million people in Turkey have suffered from chronic obstructive lung diseases due to smoking, which is also the cause of 90 percent of the lung-cancer diagnoses annually, Metintaş added.

If the rates of cigarette purchases continue to decline, the rates of health problems caused by smoking will also become lower, said professor Nazmi Bilir, a scholar at Hacettepe University’s public-health department. Bilir also noted the economical impact of the decreasing sales, saying: “Since a package of cigarettes costs approximately $2.5 in Turkey, that means $225 million has been saved just in one month. It is possible to use this kind of resource in much more beneficial areas.”

Copyright © 2009 Hurriyetdailynews

Kenya’s price-weighted All-Share Index fell 0.22, or 0.4 percent, to 57.10 at the close in Nairobi today.

The shares of 10 companies advanced, 20 fell and 25 were unchanged. The following were among the most active stocks on the Nairobi Stock Exchange today.

British American Tobacco Kenya Ltd. (BATK KN), East Africa’s biggest cigarette maker, declined 1.7 percent to 176 shillings. The company loses 12 percent of sales annually to the illegal trade of counterfeit tobacco products, Cynthia Njagi, the company’s illicit trade manager, told reporters in Nairobi yesterday.

Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd. (COOP KN), Kenya’s fourth- largest lender by assets, rose 4.8 percent to 10 shillings after reporting a 17 percent increase in first-half profit.

Olympia Capital Holdings Ltd. (DNKN KN), a building materials holding company, declined 5.3 percent to 71 shillings.

Investors are still “unhappy” about the company’s performance after it said on Aug. 3 that it posted an annual loss, said Hardy Pemhiwa, chief executive officer of Amana Capital Ltd., a Nairobi-based investment management company.

Sasini Ltd. (STCL KN), a grower and processor of tea and coffee, retreated for the fifth trading session, falling 3 percent to 6.6 shillings.

The Tea Board of Kenya yesterday forecast production of the leaf will decline 6 percent this year because of a yield-cutting drought in the East African nation. That follows a prediction by the Kenya Tea Development Agency, which said on Aug. 14 that output of the leaf may slump “heavily” this year. Kenya is the world’s largest exporter of black tea.

“Tea prices are going up because of shortages, but the market is translating lower volumes to lower revenue for Sasini,” Pemhiwa said by phone from Nairobi today.


Copyright © August 19, 2009 Bloomberg

It’s a bit ironic that a state where smoking still enjoys a wide audience will forever be tied to a federal program to reduce underage smoking. The late U.S. Rep. Mike Synar drew the ire of the tobacco industry for his anti-smoking efforts, including a nearly two-decade-old program that cracks down on retailers that sell tobacco products to minors.

Synar likely would be proud that the most recent national statistics show the rate of retailers cited for illegal sales is down to a record low of 9.9 percent and far below the federal standard of 20 percent. The data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration reported rates below 5 percent in Montana and Arkansas and as high as 17 percent in Ohio.

Oklahoma reported a 12.5 percent violation rate for the 2008 federal fiscal year, but state statistics reported a few months ago suggest the percentage of retailers snagged for illegally selling tobacco products is substantially higher, at about 18 percent.

States that exceed the federal standard risk losing millions of dollars in grant funding, and state mental health Commissioner Terri White has warned such a loss would cripple Oklahoma’s substance abuse programs. And of course it’s no secret that the real tragedy of stores and clerks that break the rules is they help children get hooked on a deadly, cancer-causing habit.

Synar’s efforts and vision have been great for the country and its youth. Too bad the program isn’t working as a better deterrent in Oklahoma.

State officials on Friday sued an Anderson Township bar and restaurant for a “clear disregard” of Ohio’s smoking ban.

Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Ohio Department of Health Director Alvin Jackson filed suits in Hamilton and Franklin counties – the first to seek court orders requiring businesses to comply with Ohio’s smoking ban.

The suits were brought against O’Neal’s Tavern, 7466 Beechmont Ave. in Anderson Township, and Zeno’s in Franklin County.

The suit accuses O’Neal’s of 12 violations of the law in the last two years, running up unpaid fines of $21,600.

“These establishments have been warned and fined repeatedly over a two-year period to no avail. They continue to push the limits and have given us no alternatives but to seek the court’s intervention,” Cordray noted.

“It’s a continued flouting of the law and an unwillingness to pay the fines,” Ohio Department of Health spokesman Kristopher Weiss said of the suits. “These were the largest violators that we had.”

Calls to O’Neal’s Friday either weren’t answered or rang busy.

The Hamilton County suit was filed against the bar and its owner, James Shank.
Shank knew about the fines, the suit alleges, because he was warned in writing and fined several times but insisted to the Health Department he would ignore them.

“In regard to the alleged ‘smoking violation,’ O’Neal’s will not be paying any fines because of the discriminatory enforcement taking place by the agents of various counties. Also, with regards to our due process rights, we would like to see the citations issued to the smokers,” Shank wrote in a Jan. 9, 2008, letter to the Hamilton County Board of Health.

The Ohio Department of Health filed the suits because that agency is responsible for enforcing Ohio’s Smoke Free Act, which was approved by voters in 2006. It began being enforced in May 2007 and was designed to protect workers and the public from second-hand smoke exposure in public places.

Weiss noted that vast majority of businesses comply with the law.

The suit notes Shanks was warned in writing of each violation but contested none of the warning letters. The suit asks for a judge to order O’Neal’s to pay the fines and adhere to the law.

MOSCOW, Idaho (AP) – The Moscow City Council has banned smoking in bars and private clubs, relegating smokers to designated areas at least 20 feet away from entrances and prohibiting any indoor smoking rooms.

That’s got some bar owners concerned. Mark Deleve, owner of the Third Street Market, says the ordinance dramatically alters the structure in which bar owners operate.

But proponents, such as 26-year-old Katie Whittier, said the ban would protect public health.

Idaho law already prohibits smoking in public buildings, except bars and clubs. The state law also allows for cities to impose additional restrictions.

A public hearing on the proposed fines – ranging from $10 to $50 for violations – is set for Aug. 3. If the fees are voted into effect, the ban kicks in on Aug. 4.


Copyright 2009 Kivitv

Cigarette sales resumed Friday at the Cayuga Indian Nation’s LakeSide Trading convenience stores in Union Springs and Seneca Falls after state appellate judges in Rochester ruled in favor of the Indian nation in its tax dispute with Cayuga and Seneca counties.

“The word is out,” said B.J. Radford, retail operations manager for the Cayuga nation.

In a 4-1 decision released about 3 p.m., judges in the Fourth Judicial Department ruled that as a “qualified reservation,” the Cayugas could sell unstamped cigarettes.

In late November, sheriff’s deputies in the counties raided the Cayugas’ two LakeSide stores, seizing about 17,600 cartons of cigarettes. The Cayugas estimated the cigarettes were worth more than $500,000.

The Cayugas had not paid state excise taxes on the cigarettes, and the counties claimed that because the Cayugas did not have an official reservation they were violating state tax law.

The nation’s two stores lie within the Cayugas’ former ancestral homeland around the north end of Cayuga Lake. The Cayugas argue that the territory is a reservation that was established by federal treaty and that it has never been disestablished.

The stores have been selling gas and sundries — but no cigarettes — since the raid. Radford said customers buying gas used cell phones to alert friends that the stores were back in the cigarette business.

“The customer base seems to be excited,” she said. “I’m surprised at how fast the word seems to be getting around.”

The ruling also precludes prosecution of Nation officials by the counties.

“The Nation is very gratified by this decision, which will permit it to resume doing what every other Indian tribe in the state has been doing for years without threat of criminal prosecution,” said Dan French, the lawyer representing the Cayugas.

Philip Spellane, an attorney for the counties, said he has not yet met with county officials to discuss what their next step would be.

The Cayugas had appealed a December ruling by state Supreme Court Judge Kenneth R. Fisher, who said the Cayugas did not have a qualified reservation status and thus could not sell tax-free cigarettes.

Fisher also allowed the counties to proceed with criminal tax-evasion charges against the Cayugas. District attorneys in both counties filed sealed indictments.

The indictments were never opened, and an appeals court ruling later barred any prosecution until the court ruled on the Cayugas’ appeal.

French said Friday’s ruling bars any prosecution.

The Cayugas maintain the confiscated cigarettes have spoiled in the more than seven months since the counties raided the stores, he said.

French said the Nation will pursue a separate civil claim, suing the counties not only for the actual value of the cigarettes but for revenue lost during the time the stores were closed.

“The Nation anticipates lost revenues in the millions,” he said.
Copyright © 2009 Syracuse

Zimbabwe’s annual tobacco auctions this year were notable for record prices and the second smallest crop in more than 50 years. Thousands of new small-scale tobacco farmers failed to grow tobacco this season because neither commercial banks nor the government had money to lend for inputs such as fertilizer.

Zimbabwe’s 2009 tobacco crop will earn about $160 million this selling season. The average price was about $3.60 a kilogram. Most tobacco will be exported to Europe with China now also an important buyer.

About 50 million kilograms was produced, more than 80 percent of that grown by the few remaining white farmers on the tiny portions of land left untouched by President Robert Mugabe’s ongoing seizures of white-owned land.

Until land invasions began in 2000, large-scale white tobacco growers and growing numbers of black farmers produced more than 220 million kilograms of tobacco each year. This was the bedrock of Zimbabwe’s economy and the country’s largest foreign currency earner.

Farm invasions cause uncertainty

This year, as farm seizures were stepped up by those loyal to President Robert Mugabe in the wake of the formation of the unity government, cash strapped banks refused loans to farmers. The banks said the current wave of farm invasions resulted in uncertainty about the farmers’ tenure on their land, and that the farms or potential harvests were therefore no surety for the lenders.

Consequently these farmers sold their crops to foreign buyers who fund their inputs, such as fertilizer. Andy Ferreira, outgoing president of the Zimbabwe Tobacco Association says it is a pity the economy is so difficult, because commercial farmers forced to forward sell their crops are getting about 20 percent less than prices on the auction floors in Harare – the largest in the world.

He said until land tenure was settled and banks felt secure to lend money to commercial farmers, this system would continue, to the detriment of Zimbabwe’s foreign earnings.

Nowadays, only small-scale farmers sell at the auction floors, and their numbers dropped to about 8,000 from 15,000; many who would normally be selling say they were unable to raise loans to buy inputs.

A small-scale producer in northern Zimbabwe, said his output was affected this season because he could not borrow enough money to buy inputs. Ideally, he would like to double his output.

“I am at Karoi, Hurungwe, I am an old farmer. Last year it was better than this year; and last year I [planted] one hectare [and] I produced more [kilograms] than this season. I haven’t any inputs,” he said.

Some small-scale farmers now growing tobacco were given white-owned land by President Robert Mugabe.

New farmers satisfied with prices

One new farmer said he had a fair season and wants to plant more, but says he needs a loan for his next crop. He says he grew one hectare of Virginia tobacco, sold it on auction and was paid well.

“Last year it was similar to this year,” he said. “For this year it is good quality tobacco. Prices for last year and this year [are] similar. Just because, this year according to my tobacco, it is selling well. The sales are really quite good. So far I have sold 700 kg for $3.69 [per kilogram] [and] I am going to plant more.”

Despite increased anti-smoking laws in many parts of the world, and declining numbers of smokers, Ferreira says Zimbabwe’s tobacco is still prized by top manufacturers of cigarettes.

Many commercial growers have already planted seedbeds for next year’s tobacco crop despite not knowing if they will still be there to reap the crop for the 2010 selling season.
Copyright © 2009 Voanews

Tobacco earnings in Malawi, the world’s largest producer of the burley variety, have fallen 31 percent after 14 weeks of trading compared with a year earlier, according to Auction Holdings Ltd., a buyer.

Earnings from tobacco fetched $161.2 million by June 23, compared with $233.9 million during the same period a year earlier, Auction said in a statement handed to reporters in Blantyre today.

During the period, farmers sold 99.5 million kilograms (219 million pounds) of tobacco at an average price of $2.08 per kilogram, compared with 98.7 million kilograms at an average price of $2.24 last year.

While the government has set a minimum price of $2.15 per kilogram, buyers are offering farmers less than that because the leaf is of a poorer quality than last year and as the global recession curbs demand.

Tobacco is Malawi’s main foreign exchange earner, accounting for 60 percent of the country’s export earnings. Burley tobacco is a lower-grade variety of the leaf used to fill cigarettes flavored with higher-grade flue-cured tobacco.


Copyright © 2009 Bloomberg

A federal grand jury in Seattle has indicted a New York State tobacco wholesaler in a recent crackdown on a smoke shop near Arlington run by former Stillaguamish tribal leaders who were selling millions of cartons of untaxed cigarettes.

The indictment against Arthur “Sugar” Montour, 37, of Perrysburg, N.Y., alleges that he lied in sworn statements about selling cigarettes to the smoke shop in proceedings seeking forfeiture of more than $50,000 paid to him by the smoke shop.

In March, three former Stillaguamish tribal council members, Edward Goodridge Sr., 60, Edward Goodridge Jr., 33, and Sara Lee Schroedl, 40, were sentenced to federal prison for making millions of dollars dealing untaxed smokes out of the Blue Stilly Smoke Shop.

In 2007, agents seized millions of cigarettes from the group and said they had generated nearly $55 million in revenue — without paying the $25 million in state taxes owed.

Prosecutors say some of the cigarettes were purchased from Montour’s company, Native Wholesale Supply in New York. They went after about $50,000 that the Blue Stilly shop paid that company for the smokes.

The indictment says Montour filed declarations with the court saying the Blue Stilly never ordered from his company, and denying that he operated a warehouse in New Mexico.

Montour is due in court in Seattle next week.


Copyright © 2009 Nwsource

THE average fine for handling illegal cigarettes was just €423 during the first three months of the year, new figures reveal.

The paltry size of the fine last night prompted calls to end Ireland’s reputation as a cigarette smugglers’ paradise.

The tobacco industry is among those who want stiffer penalties imposed on smugglers and sellers of illegal cigarettes.

Figures released by the Revenue Commissioners showed that the fines handed down by the courts to those convicted in the first three months of the year.

Convictions

A breakdown of the revenue statistics reveals that Dublin, Louth and Kerry top the list for cigarette convictions.

Penalties were imposed in 11 counties, with 43pc of convictions recorded in Dublin, 11pc in Louth and 8.5pc in Kerry, while the rest were divided between Clare, Wexford, Limerick, Galway, Kilkenny, Cavan, Waterford and Kildare.

The manufacturers said last night the figures showed the geographic spread of the market for the smuggled cigarettes, which were estimated by the authorities to cost the Exchequer €500m every year in lost revenue. The total combined hauls of cigarettes confiscated at Dublin airport alone since the start of the year has reached more than 13 million.

A spokesman for the Irish Tobacco Manufacturers Advisory Committee said: “This evidence highlights that, with continued insufficient penalties, Ireland will remain a smugglers’ paradise”.
Copyright © 2009 Independent

Lawyers for Star Scientific Inc. (STSI) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. made their final bid Monday to sway jurors in a high-stakes case involving Star’s patent claim to a new tobacco-curing method that substantially reduces the formation of certain cancer-causing toxins.

Star, which is seeking several hundred million dollars from RJR for patent infringement, said its patented method for reducing certain toxins in cured tobacco, known as tobacco specific nitrosamines, was a revolution in the tobacco industry.

“Nobody could believe it,” Star lawyer Richard McMillan said in his closing argument to jurors. “It was completely surprising to the industry.”

McMillan said RJR, a unit of Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), “got wind” of the small company’s patent and encouraged its farmers to practice Star’s invention without permission.

McMillan told the jury that Star was a different kind of tobacco company, one dedicated to making products that are less harmful to tobacco users. “We need to have our patent rights respected if we’re going to have an impact in the future, ” he said. “That’s just a fact.”

RJR lawyer Richard Kaplan said his company had invented its own tobacco-curing method that reduced the toxins and didn’t need to copy Star’s.

“Star is taking credit for the hard work and diligent efforts of other people, ” he said.

Kaplan said RJR had been looking at the toxin problem for years and invested substantial time and money coming up with a solution.

He called Star’s tobacco-curing method unconventional and prohibitively expensive.

Kaplan also argued that Star’s patent was not valid, saying it wasn’t specific or tangible enough for anyone to understand the invention or how to practice it.

Monday’s closing arguments, which took place in a small federal courtroom packed with spectators, concluded four weeks of trial proceedings. The case was submitted to the jury late in the afternoon.

The outcome could go a long way to determining Star’s fortunes. If it prevails, it hopes to reach lucrative licensing agreements with other tobacco companies. If the jury decides that RJR infringed Star’s patents, the case will proceed to a second trial phase to determine how much RJR owes in damages.

U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Garbis, who has presided over the trial, said Monday that Star and RJR haven’t found a single point of agreement throughout the whole trial. Garbis said the sides were still arguing Sunday night and into the wee hours of Monday morning on the proper jury instructions to guide the deliberations.

“It has been a struggle of Titanic proportions,” Garbis said.

A debate over the desirability of smoking bans for bars and restaurants, seemingly ancient history in cities such as Los Angeles and New York, is now reaching the news again as legislatures in traditional tobacco-growing states have begun to consider the issue. Legislatures in both North Carolina and Virginia recently approved statewide smoking bans for bars and restaurants.

There are pros and cons of such a ban. On the pro side, secondhand smoke can result in adverse health consequences for some patrons and employees. What about the cons? Arguments based on harm to tobacco manufacturers or libertarian viewpoints focusing on individual freedom are often partially or completely discarded by politicians. This leaves only one potential con that could have significant appeal to legislators: A ban could reduce the profits of and employment by bars and restaurants–and, in particular, may harm small business owners.

Well over 100 empirical studies have attempted to examine the economic impact of smoking bans on the hospitality industry. Most of these studies purport to show that smoking bans do not have adverse economic impacts on bars and restaurants, and some actually claim to demonstrate that they improve their profitability. The surgeon general explicitly relied on this body of literature in a report on smoking bans in 2006, and many legislators have relied on it since then.

If one accepts these results, then smoking bans reduce secondhand exposure yet don’t negatively affect (and may even help!) bars and restaurants. So there isn’t much need for debate and, given this evidence, even states known for tobacco production continue to vote smoking bans into place.

But there is one major problem. Upon further inspection, previous studies do not, on the whole, demonstrate that smoking bans don’t harm bars and restaurants. In fact, appropriately done studies and basic economic logic demonstrate that they often do.

As several recent economic research articles have explained, many prior studies of smoking bans are riddled with statistical shortcomings. For example, some simply compare revenues of bars and restaurants for a short time period with a smoking ban with revenues during a short time period without a ban. But, they do so without making any adjustment for other factors that impact revenues over a given time period.

Others simply try to account for the factors influencing sales in a rough way. When the authors don’t find a statistically significant result (which shouldn’t be surprising because they haven’t carefully done the analysis), they conclude that bans do not harm bars or restaurants. Several recent peer-reviewed, published articles have noted these and other more technical flaws.

In a peer-reviewed research article I published a few months ago, I performed an empirical study of the proposed smoking ban in India that examined its economic impact by looking at stock market prices. (This is a method that has been used in hundreds of peer-reviewed economic research articles.)

I found a statistically significant result that the proposed smoking ban lowered the market value of hospitality industry firms. In my sample, that category included bars, restaurants and hotels. Of course, I studied only India, and only one particular smoking ban. Yet the result of my analysis (the only one using this well-established method) certainly establishes that a smoking ban can hurt the hospitality industry.

To be sure, it is also a possibility that any ban will lower smoking patrons’ demand for the services of bars, restaurants and gaming establishments where smoking is not permitted. Basic economic theory maintains that such lower demand could lower the profits of any bar or restaurant subject to such a ban.

Basic economic theory also posits that a ban can distort the natural action of the market by leading to a transfer of business from one establishment to another. For example, many recent state legislatures have considered approving only a partial ban, which exempts certain types of establishments like private clubs or cigar lounges. Such targeted bans can be particularly harmful to those establishments subject to the ban, as they lose business to competing firms that don’t face the ban.

Such an impact can also occur for establishments located in areas under a smoking ban but near an area without such a ban. In this case, a ban can simply lead to a transfer of business away from the area with a smoking ban to the area without the ban.

So, even if legislators are reluctant to listen to arguments about individual freedom or those based on preserving the welfare of tobacco manufacturers, there are other, very real economic trade-offs they should consider when voting on a smoking ban.

Copyright © 2009 Forbes

As the Senate prepares to vote on legislation to empower the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products, its members would be wise to consult a recent appeals court decision. The decision makes it clear that the tobacco companies have engaged in deceitful and harmful behavior for many decades and cannot be trusted to reform on their own. Regulatory oversight is the best chance to rein them in.

The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld major elements of a 2006 lower court decision that found big tobacco companies guilty of racketeering and fraud as part of a prolonged campaign to deceive and addict the public. That 1,742-page opinion, rendered by Judge Gladys Kessler, laid out in painstaking detail how the tobacco companies made false statements and suppressed evidence to deny or play down the addictive qualities and the adverse health effects of smoking.

Judge Kessler found that the companies manipulated the design of cigarettes to deliver addictive doses of nicotine, falsely denied that secondhand smoke caused disease and falsely represented that light and low-tar cigarettes presented fewer health risks.

The appeals court not only upheld her decision as legally sound, it seemed deeply impressed by the “volumes of evidence” and “countless examples of deliberately false statements” underlying many of Judge Kessler’s findings. It also upheld some but not all of the marketing restrictions and other requirements she imposed to prevent the companies from making future false claims and engaging in additional fraudulent activities.

The companies protested that they should not be subjected to such requirements because they had already agreed to numerous remedies under a settlement agreement with 46 states and the District of Columbia. The appeals panel was rightly unimpressed. It upheld the district court’s findings that after the settlement went into effect in 1998, the companies almost immediately began to evade and violate various prohibitions against joint activities and false statements.

The House has already voted to give the F.D.A. power to regulate tobacco. Senators, who are getting ready to vote on similar legislation, now have fair warning, if they needed any more, that this is a rogue industry. It can’t be trusted to behave responsibly or even adhere to agreements it has signed. It is time to grant the F.D.A. the power to regulate the content and marketing of tobacco products.

Copyright © 2009 Nytimes

Since rising band The Nunung Cs successfully popularized a soccer-themed song titled “S’pakbola” (soccer) and ended up with a record deal, possibilities have opened up for other over-18s to follow in the same direction.

Earlier this month, the six-crew pop-dangdut band officially signed a contract with cigarette producer PT Djarum Super which had discovered their original song, “Gila Bola Gila Musik” (crazy for soccer, crazy for music), on Facebook.

“S’pakbola” has now become the official song of the Indonesian Super League, Indonesia’s top-tier soccer championship.

“We are looking for other young and creative song writers to follow The Nunung Cs’ path. So, don’t conceal your song-writing talents. Expose your work to the public,” said Inge Bachrens, ma-naging director of Nubuzz Network, a one-stop music company that bridges young musicians and song writers with the country’s music industry.

Jakarta-based The Nunung Cs crew comprises Kamal (lead vocalist), Awe (keyboard), Budi (guitar), Kudil (guitar), Nanang (guitar) and Fatul (bass).

“Keep in mind that this is not a competition. We (Nubuzz Network) and Djarum Super will review the quality of songs on soccer being uploaded to the site.

“The creative ones may get record deals,” Inge said.

Maman Abdurrahman, a defender of the national team, said, “I’m inviting all soccer fans to create soccer-themed songs.

“When playing a match, I often hear fans singing songs that will instil fighting spirit.”

Copyright © 2009 Thejakartapost

It was a narrow loophole, but some local tavern owners thought they could squeeze through it anyway.

When Wisconsin’s new smoking ban takes effect in July 2010, indoor smoking will be allowed in only one kind of tavern – cigar bars.

And as soon as the Legislature approved that law, even before Gov. Jim Doyle had signed it, tavern owners started calling Milwaukee’s License Division to find out what they needed to do to become cigar bars, city License Manager Rebecca Grill said.

But by then, it was probably already too late to start a cigar bar, and even some taverns that now call themselves cigar bars won’t meet the law’s standards. Only one Milwaukee tavern, and a handful in the suburbs, expect smoking to continue at their businesses once the law takes effect.

The law bans smoking in nearly all workplaces, including restaurants and most bars. Many tavern owners fought the ban, fearing they would lose business if patrons couldn’t smoke.

Yet cigar and pipe smoking – but not cigarette smoking – can continue in tobacco shops and in any tavern that earns at least 15% of its annual gross revenue from the sale of cigars or pipe tobacco, provided the establishment is in existence the day after the law is published. Publication is planned for June 2, meaning cigar bars must be open by June 3 to take advantage of the exemption, said Stephen Miller, chief of the state’s Legislative Reference Bureau.

That would be three weeks after the Assembly and Senate passed the law May 13. Doyle signed it May 18.

But in a practical sense, three weeks would not be long enough for anyone to invest the time and money needed to start a cigar bar, said Joette Barta, co-owner of Nice Ash, a 3-year-old cigar bar in downtown Waukesha.

Cigar sales account for 25% to 30% of Nice Ash’s revenue, Barta said. To reach that point, however, Barta and her husband Jeff have built two walk-in humidors and purchased an inventory of cigars worth $100,000. Just obtaining a cigar dealer’s license took several months of work, she said.

“It’s a huge financial investment,” she said.

Waukesha Mayor Larry Nelson had cited the Bartas’ investment in arguing for lawmakers to exempt cigar bars such as Nice Ash, 327 W. Main St.

In Milwaukee, the main beneficiary of the exemption is Shaker’s Cigar Bar and World Café, 422 S. 2nd St. Owner Bob Weiss says he sees cigars as part of a total cultural experience, offering Caribbean food and drinks such as cognac, scotch and rum that go well with cigar smoking.

Cigarettes don’t fit into that picture because their odor detracts from the enjoyment of food, Weiss said. “As a chef, I am not a fan of cigarette smoking at all. Cigars are a different animal.”

The state’s cigar bar definition doesn’t fit Romans’ Pub, a Bay View tavern that has advertised itself as a cigar bar for the past 13 years, owner Mike Romans said. With less than 5% of his revenue coming from cigar sales, “I’m not even close,” he said.

In recent years, many customers have found it less expensive to buy cigars on the Internet and then bring them to smoke in the pub at 3475 S. Kinnickinnic Ave., Romans said. For others, “I kept the cigars mainly as a convenience,” he said.

Romans doesn’t expect to lose business because of the new law. He sees his 31-year-old bar’s main draw as its selection of craft beers. And he plans to outfit his deck as an outdoor smoking area, as allowed by the law.

“I’m going to adjust,” he said.

The law will have differing effects on the two Milwaukee County suburbs that have approved their own smoking bans.

Since July 1, 2006, Wauwatosa has generally prohibited smoking in restaurants, but with exceptions for taverns, combination tavern-restaurants and establishments that can show a “hardship,” which is defined as a loss of gross receipts greater than 10% as a result of complying with the ordinance. The state law will end those exceptions.

Starting July 1, Shorewood will enforce a ban that largely mirrors the state ban that will take effect a year later. Like the state ban, Shorewood will still allow smoking in places such as cigar stores and on outdoor patios of bars and restaurants. But the Shorewood ordinance would be more restrictive in that it does not exempt cigar bars and also bans smoking in village parks. The state law would let the park smoking ban continue.

Milwaukee licensing authorities don’t plan to administer the cigar bar exemption, leaving enforcement to police and the courts, said Grill and Ald. Jim Bohl, chairman of the Common Council’s Licenses Committee.

Romans, who smokes cigars at home, not in his bar, said: “I’m not going to miss the cigarettes. I quit (smoking cigarettes) over 20 years ago, and I’ve taken in enough secondhand smoke.”

Copyright © 2009 Jsonline

Lost jobs in Wisconsin was an argument used against a statewide smoking ban that will go into effect next year. But two other Midwestern states that have smoking bans say they has not significantly affected employment in restaurants and bars.

Before Minnesota and Ohio approved their bans, restaurant and bar owners said they’d lose business if customers weren’t allowed to smoke. But researchers from those states who tracked employment data over three years found job loss was very minimal, not even statistically relevant.

In Wisconsin, opposition to the smoking ban extended beyond restaurants and bars. When Wisconsin lawmakers passed a smoking ban earlier this month, Senator Bob Jauch argued unsuccessfully to allow motels to have smoking rooms. The Democrat represents northern Wisconsin.

“Those along the border will be economically hit and hurt because someone will go to Minnesota,” he said.

Although there are only predictions of what economic impact a statewide smoking ban will have, there are community examples. In Madison, public health officials noted that there was more liquor licenses sold after the city’s ban was enacted in 2005.

Maureen Busalacchi from Smoke Free Wisconsin says clean air laws can actually improve business.

“The population continues to grow of nonsmokers. And these are the environments that most people like. And our surveys show even a majority of smokers support smoke free air laws.”

When Wisconsin’s smoking ban takes effect in 2010 it will apply to all businesses; except for existing tobacco stores and cigar bars.

Copyright © 2009 Superiortelegram