When Bruce Hicks started selling cigarettes from behind the bar at Murray Street Darts last year, it had nothing to do with diversifying revenue streams and everything to do with getting the cops off his back.

A fierce opponent to the statewide smoking ban from its impetus in 2006, Hicks racked up a series of tickets and legal costs as he blatantly and publicly defied the law, which prohibits smoking in all public indoor places. In September, a judge ruled housing CJ’s Tobacco Shop within Murray Street Darts, 609 N. Murray Blvd., exempted the business from the ban.

Hicks says he won.

“We did find the loophole. CSPD is not going to enforce the smoking ban at Murray Street Darts,” Hicks said.

Finding such a loophole was a fervent quest by many bar owners across the state when the law passed in spring 2006. Many claimed the ban would put them out of business.

Hicks claimed he lost a large percentage of his business in the six months he complied with the law, but then said, “enough is enough,” and began his crusade against the ban.

The downturn in the economy too closely followed the law’s passing to measure the effect of the smoking ban on the health of businesses, said Luke Travins, owner of the Ritz on Tejon Street.

“I really can’t attribute any of our sales trends to tobacco law,” Travins said.

Since the law took effect in July 2006, Colorado Springs police have issued 88 citations for smoking ban violations to businesses and individuals. Bars violating the law face a first-time fine of $200, with penalties rising for subsequent infractions.

“I think for a city of this size, those numbers are consistent with what we were expecting,” said Lt. David Whitlock, police spokesman. “We don’t get a lot of complaints about this. Our experience was, initially there was some push back. As with all of these laws, folks settle in and get back to business.”

Hicks estimates the city spent around $100,000 prosecuting his smoking ban violations. Between a donation jar at his bar and charging $1 to rent an ashtray, Hicks raised $16,000 to cover his legal fees.

With Hicks’ “win,” there are now two bars in Colorado Springs where you can legally smoke and drink indoors. The other, 15C, which advertises itself as a “Martini & Cigar Bar,” houses more than two dozen humidors and collects more than 5 percent of its annual sales from tobacco, making it a “cigar bar” as defined by the smoking ban.

On the whole, the ban isn’t an issue for most businesses, with even some of the most vocal opponents falling into compliance. V Bar on Kiowa Street, openly defiant in the beginning, backed down six weeks after the law took effect.

Other bars, like Oscars on Tejon Street, built covered patios or installed large awnings to accommodate smokers. Oscars’ patio is heated and ventilated by fans and, in the summer, the plastic windows are left open.

“People love the fact that they can stand out there. They don’t have to stand on the corner and freeze,” said Brian Bohannon, Oscars manager.

CARLYN RAY MITCHELL, THE GAZETTE
March 08, 2010

Winnipeg soccer fields may soon be added to the growing list of areas where, even in the great outdoors, smokers are forbidden to light up.

The Winnipeg Youth Soccer Association wants to ban smoking within 50 metres of any youth game following complaints from referees and parents that the air is being fouled by sideline smokers.

“There were a couple of incidents last year where a referee had to stop a game because somebody had lit up … right on the sideline and it was wafting onto the field,” association president Alastair Gillespie said Monday. “We’re doing this for the protection of the kids.”

‘This is just insanity. People have gone completely insane.’—Arminda Mota, My Choice president

The group is consulting a lawyer and talking with city hall to ensure it has the legal authority to ban smoking on municipal fields during its games, and hopes to implement the rule this spring.

Smokers may be getting used to this kind of treatment. It is growing across the country.

Toronto started banning smoking near all playgrounds and wading pools last year. The Nova Scotia community of Truro bans outdoor smoking along a popular downtown shopping strip. The Edmonton Folk Music Festival, held outside in the city each summer, has a no-smoking area that covers half of the seating area in front of its outdoor main stage.
Weeded out

It’s getting virtually impossible to find a place to light up, according to one smoker’s rights group.

“This is just insanity. People have gone completely insane,” said Arminda Mota, president of My Choice. My Choice was set up several years ago with funding from tobacco manufacturers, although Mota says the group no longer receives money from the industry.

“What (anti-smoking advocates) want is to criminalize smokers, and they want children not to see any smokers anywhere.”

Idling cars and trucks are more of a health threat in the outdoors than second-hand smoke, Mota argued.

But anti-smoking advocates disagree. They point to a 2005 University of Maryland study that found levels of second-hand smoke outdoors did not dissipate to low levels until travelling seven metres or more and that distance increased if there were multiple smokers standing together.

Gillespie is hopeful most soccer moms and dads will support the smoking ban.

“It’s not our desire to offend people or to be looking for trouble,” he said. “I hope people will accept this and if they wish to smoke, they will smoke away from the (field).”

But smokers are getting fed up with the growing list of areas where they can’t light up, Mota said.

“Are we going to live in a world where everybody is bullied because of their way of life?,” she said.

“What they want is to make it virtually impossible to smoke absolutely anywhere, so basically you’re criminalizing law-abiding citizens.”

February 22, 2010
The Canadian Press

It remains to be seen who will win the Super bowl, but it has suddenly become clear who will win the smoking ban debate in Indiana.

A bill to ban smoking in public places passed the house 73 to 26 earlier this week-but that bill is going nowhere in the senate.

Senate President Pro-tem David Long says that economic times are tough and a statewide ban could hurt business. Long says the senate isn’t ready to consider a ban at this time.

“Well the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House are the two bosses so to speak and they make the calls,” said Ind. Sen. Jim Arnold, (D) LaPorte. “That’s a power that’s awarded to the party in the majority and that’s his call and I respect that.”

Still, some insist that Indiana’s reluctance to approve a statewide smoking ban is earning it a new nickname. “The ash tray of the Midwest, unfortunately, but that is what we have been termed,” said Jill Sabo with Tobacco Free St. Joe County.

It’s an alleged reputation Indiana isn’t likely to lose anytime soon, despite Sabo’s willingness to do so. “Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin have all gone tobacco free, comprehensively, and I think that we’re ready.”

Senator Arnold agrees. “I would like to address it, let’s put it to rest one way or another, and then let’s move on to other issues and quit spending time every session on certain issues that seem to raise their ugly head every session.”

Senator Arnold discounts the contention that economic conditions should derail the debate. “I know that all surveys show Indiana is the second largest smoking state in the country, next to West Virginia. It can call it economy if they want, if they chose to do so, they probably have their facts and figures to support that, but sooner or later we’ve got to start looking at medical costs-what it’s costing for second hand smoke. How much money we’re spending, Indiana spends about $2 billion a year in smoke related medical issues in this state.”

Sen. Arnold does see one advantage to waiting until next year to address a possible ban. Next year’s session is a ‘long’ one, while this year’s session is short-slated to end in mid March.
Feb 4, 2010
Mark Peterson

A month ago, Columbia officials were ready to take a local business to court for violating the city’s smoking ban – a first for a Midlands local government.

Now, City Council members are poised to change the law Wednesday to exempt the business from the smoking ban.

The amendment to the city’s smoking ban would exempt cigar bars – defined as a bar that “generates 35 percent or more of its annual gross income from the sale on the premises of cigars, tobacco products and other paraphernalia.”

The amendment would apply only to cigars and pipes – not cigarettes – and the city’s business license division would have to determine a cigar bar’s eligibility by reviewing the bar’s financial documents, which must first be approved by a certified public accountant.

“Clearly, if somebody is going into a cigar bar, they are going there to smoke,” said Councilwoman Tameika Isaac Devine, who supports the change. “The whole intent behind the ordinance still remains true because restaurants and other places were the primary places we were concerned about.”

Councilman E.W. Cromartie, however, criticized the move as nothing more than a “backdoor way to have smoking in bars.”

“That guts the whole essence of the ordinance if we allow bars to be in a position to have people smoking in them,” Cromartie said.

The city’s smoking ban, which has been in effect since October 2008, has always exempted retail tobacco stores, defined as stores that sell tobacco products and other products that are “merely incidental.”

The Tobacco Merchant on Bower Parkway was covered under that definition. But over the summer, owner Bill Slicer installed a bar and began serving alcohol to his customers while they smoked cigars and pipes.

City officials argued that once The Tobacco Merchant began serving alcohol, it became a bar, which was not covered under the city’s smoking ban.

Darryl Smalls, Slicer’s attorney, argued The Tobacco Merchant was not a bar, but a retail tobacco store whose sales of alcohol were “merely incidental.”

Brenda Kyzer, who as the city’s business license administrator is tasked with enforcing the city’s smoking ban, asked City Council members Jan. 6 to file a lawsuit against the bar to force compliance with the city’s smoking ban.

City Council members did not discuss the issue Jan. 6. Instead, council members discussed the issue in a closed-to-the-public meeting Jan. 13 – citing legal advice – but took no action.

The amendment to the city’s smoking ban was placed on the agenda Friday for City Council’s next meeting, at 9 a.m. Wednesday at City Hall.

City Council members approved a smoking ban in 2008 that included bars and restaurants over the objections of bar owners. An earlier version of the bill had exempted bars, but that version did not pass.

Devine said changing the smoking ban is the right move.

“The whole intent behind the ban was to keep places that just general people go – restaurants and other paces like that – away from second-hand smoke because they didn’t want to be around it,” she said.

But the city’s original smoking ban was also intended to protect bartenders and restaurant wait staff, who have to be exposed to second-hand smoke.

Devine said she did not think the city had enough cigar bars so that the only option for a nonsmoker would be to work in one. She said the 35 percent requirement would discourage existing bars from converting to cigar bars.

“I don’t think anybody is going to go through that expense to allow smoking in their establishment,” Devine said.
By ADAM BEAM

Smokers, beware. As of January 2nd, state laws have gone into effect and smoking will no longer be permitted inside North Carolina restaurants and bars. Only private clubs like the Elks Lodge in Raleigh that are non-profit and serve food and drinks can allow smoking.

For some patrons, the new ban could be viewed as a reprieve. Some restaurants hope that the ban will bring in business that diners otherwise would not set foot in before the ban was enacted. For other restaurants, perhaps well-known and embraced for their smoky bar atmosphere, the new ban on smoking indoors could prove to be bad for business. In order to prepare for the new law going into effect at the start of the new year, some restaurants have expanded or built outdoor patios and have purchased propane heat lamps to keep huddled smoking patrons warm outside.

Enforcing the new smoking law may be tough. Offenders will likely be fined due to complaints primarily from the public. Restaurants and bars can be fined up to $200 a day and smokers inside could be also slapped with a $50 fine if they do not stop smoking inside after they have been told to quit. Complaints of offenders can be routed to local health departments and officials via an online form at SmokeFree.NC.gov.

As a non-smoker, I have never been deterred from entering into a restaurant in Raleigh because of a smoky atmosphere. As a longtime Raleigh resident, I have been familiar with which restaurants and bars were smoker-friendly and if I was not a fan or did not like it, I did not choose to give them my money. I am an adult and I knew very well the adverse health risks of secondhand smoke as I stepped into places that did not prohibit smoking indoors. Even so, I am glad that from now after leaving bars and restaurants, my clothes will not be left with the lingering stench of smoke after a long night out.

For restaurants and bars that are considered “dives” by reputation, this ban could prove to be disastrous. The familiar ambiance, intentional or not, could become drastically different. There is an unspoken romantic nature of a smoke-filled room, that taken away from their regulars, may adversely affect the reputations and business of many restaurants and bars.

There will likely be some angry chatter, lively debates and resentment from smokers having to take their smoking outside in the beginning, especially with the new law changing in the middle of a cold winter and low temperatures. By summertime, people probably will likely have become accustomed to stepping outside for a puff. In big cities like New York City, smoking outside bars and restaurants largely seems like a way of life and nightlife and dining out seems to have gone on usual without too much a huff and puff.

GALVESTON — Smokers will be able to light up in tobacco shops, but they’ll have to snuff their cigarettes before going inside restaurants, bars and private clubs when the city’s smoking ordinance goes into effect Jan. 1.

City council members agreed Thursday to amend the ordinance to allow smoking in stores specializing in tobacco products, but smoking would still be banned in restaurants, bars, taverns, private clubs such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars club, and in outdoor seating areas, including the sidewalk outside venues along The Strand.

While the amendment loosens one of the strictest smoking ordinances in the state, it didn’t please bar and restaurant owners.

Dennis Byrd, owner of The Spot restaurant and president of the Galveston Restaurant Association, said the smoking ban would harm already struggling island businesses when Houston smokers, who want cigarettes with their cocktails, decide to choose to light up in Kemah instead of crossing the causeway.

Byrd and other restaurant owners wanted council members to amend the ban to allow smoking on decks and patios.

“I believe it is too restrictive of an ordinance,” Byrd said.

The only business that stands to benefit from the amendment is Havana Alley Cigar Shop and Lounge, 415 21st St. The shop’s operators have been lobbying council members to amend the ordinance after spending thousands of dollars on furniture and building supplies just before the ordinance passed July 23.

Charlie Head, who said his business relied heavily on monthly subscriptions from customers who keep cigars in lockers at the shop, argued the ban would have forced him to shutter his business.

The shop’s chief technical officer said Thursday the amendment allows the Havana Alley Cigar Shop and Lounge to remain open.

The amendment also provides a refuge for cigar aficionados to smoke since they will no longer be allowed to light up in bars and taverns and on patios, Chris David said.

However, council members fearing they were giving the shop an undue advantage, prohibited the shop from allowing its patrons to sip beer, wine and liquor inside the store.

Though the shop never sold alcohol, it allowed patrons to bring and store their own alcohol in lockers. That will not be allowed under the amended smoking ordinance. The shop also must install a ventilation system and ban anyone younger than 18 years old.

The amendment was seen as a compromise between council members who wanted to rescind the smoking ban altogether, citing individual rights and the ban’s possible detrimental effect on the island’s recovering small businesses, and those who supported the strict smoking ban because they considered the issue a matter of public health.

A vote to send a proposal for a stronger smoking ban back to a City-County Council committee Monday night drew cheers from opponents and supporters, who both saw the move as a sign their side could prevail in the months-long fight.

Foes celebrated that, at least for now, people can still light up in Indianapolis bars, bowling alleys, private clubs and other establishments where smoking would be prohibited under the proposal.

Proponents rejoiced that the ban is still alive and has time to gain more council supporters before it goes back to the full council, most likely in the next few months.

The council’s 20-7 vote to send the measure back to committee came at the urging of its sponsors, who said it was senseless to extend the vacillation that has occurred on the issue since the ordinance was introduced Oct. 5.

The stronger ban initially received an indecisive vote and then was tabled before the council decided last month to bring it back at Monday’s meeting.

Supporters had known for days they did not have enough votes to pass the measure, and Democrat Angela Mansfield, a key sponsor of the ordinance, had to miss Monday’s meeting unexpectedly.

Ben Hunter, a Republican sponsor who made the motion to send the ordinance back to the Community Affairs Committee, said the move would provide a chance to renew discussion with fewer political fireworks and allow council members to craft a compromise.

“We’re not going to get anything done on the full council floor,” Hunter said. “We’re getting nowhere, and all it’s done is create ancillary arguments that are not advancing the debate on public policy.”

Libertarian Ed Coleman, an opponent of the ordinance, urged the council to vote against sending it back to committee and to get the issue resolved Monday.

Dozens of supporters and opponents packed the Public Assembly Room of the City-County Building anticipating the council vote. Supporters wore green shirts with the logo of the group Smoke Free Indy; opponents donned red shirts that said, “Stop the Farce.”

Instead, the debate will progress, and both sides say they’ll be lobbying to keep the issue in the public eye.

Bill Smythe, who represents Marion County for the Indiana Licensed Beverage Association, said he sees a move back to committee as the ban’s kiss of death. He said the proposal lacks enough council support to pass, and getting an endorsement from Mayor Greg Ballard, who has said he would veto the ban in its current form, will be a challenge.

“I don’t think they get it,” Smythe said of the applause from ban supporters. “They think it’s going back to committee to come back changed. It’s going to committee to die.”

But Tim Filler, a spokesman for Smoke Free Indy, said he’s optimistic about gaining the support of Ballard and a few key council Democrats whose endorsement could tip the vote in the ban’s favor.

Earlier Monday, he and other smoke-free advocates delivered a box of more than 500 letters from constituents in support of the ban to Ballard’s office. In coming months, he said, the group will continue similar efforts to engage the public and make citizens’ opinions known to city leaders.

“This is obviously a marathon and not a sprint,” Filler said. “(Monday’s vote) is not a defeat for sure. It’s a blip on the screen in terms of the big picture.”

While supporters continue their efforts, Smythe and other opponents will work to counter them. Save Indianapolis Bars, which typically disbands between fights over the smoking ban issue, will continue operating and will bring on a paid staff member.

Council members also will try to come up with a solution that’s more broadly supported.

Hunter said that likely will include amendments such as exempting retail tobacco stores and private clubs and softening the provision prohibiting smoking within 25 feet of doorways.

By Francesca Jarosz
December 1, 2009

Almost all public places that permit indoor smoking in Topeka will be required to kick that habit beginning at 12:01 a.m. Friday morning.

That is when City Ordinance No. 19315 takes effect banning smoking in public places and places of employment, with limited exceptions, as well as within 10 feet of the main entrances and air handling units of those buildings.

Buildings in which smoking is banned will be required to display a “no smoking” sign at each entrance.

To help building owners meet that requirement, the city this past week on its Web page at http://www.topeka.org/caoi.shtml placed versions of such signs that may be downloaded, printed out and put up in places covered by the ordinance.

The new rules were sparked by the Topeka City Council’s passage Sept. 29 of a clean air ordinance sponsored by Councilwoman Deborah Swank.

“We have probably done the most important thing we could do to improve the health of this community,” Swank said after the vote.

The ordinance takes effect Friday after notice of its adoption was published in the official city newspaper, the Topeka Metro News, which was followed by the passage of a 60-day period targeted at giving people time for the ordinance to take effect.

Opponents in mid-October began acquiring signatures on a petition seeking to force a public vote on the matter. County officials say opponents of the ban to force such a vote must acquire 5,744 valid signatures of registered Topeka voters within 180 days of the date of the first signature on the petition. Petition drive organizers indicated last week that their most recent tally, conducted Nov. 16, showed they had collected 3,409 signatures.

Meanwhile, the clean air ordinance takes effect Friday regardless of the status of efforts to overturn it.

The measure amends city rules by banning public smoking indoors and at places of employment, except in:

– Private residences, except when used as a child care, adult day care or health care facility.

– Private places, which are locations such as personal homes and motor vehicles where the public isn’t invited or permitted. A privately owned business that is open to the public is not defined as a “private place” under the ordinance.

– Retail tobacco stores that receive at least 65 percent of their revenue from the sale of tobacco products.

– Outdoor places of employment, including bar and restaurant patios, courtyards and outdoor dining areas.

– No more more than 20 percent of rooms in hotels and motels.

The ordinance authorizes the owner, manager or other person having control of a place where smoking is banned to take all necessary steps to prevent it and to put up a “no smoking” sign at every entrance. The ordinance calls for such signs to contain bold lettering of at least one inch in height, with owners also being given the option of putting up signs showing the international “no smoking” symbol.

The ordinance authorizes the police chief or his designee to adopt administrative rules and regulations for administering the ordinance and to accept complaints, issue notices of violations and collect fines from violators.

The ordinance calls for people who smoke in an area where smoking is prohibited to be fined $50 for the first violation, $100 for the second within 12 months of the first and $200 per violation for a third or subsequent violation within 12 months of the first two.

It also sets a fine schedule for violations committed by the owner, manager or operator of public places or places of employment who fail to enforce the ordinance. Those fines are $100 for the first violation, $250 for the second within 12 months of the first and $500 per violation for a third or subsequent violation within 12 months of the first two.

Additionally, a business license or permit issued by the city may be suspended for a third or subsequent violation within a 12-month period.

The city on its Web site this past week encouraged business patrons to report violators of the smoking ordinance to management of the business where those violations occur. The city urged managers who need help handling violators to call police at (785) 368-9551.

But Police Chief Ron Miller said his department will be involved in the enforcement of the ordinance only at the point that businesses need help with those who refuse to comply.

Miller said he doesn’t expect his department to face any insurmountable problems, as its research indicates no significant enforcement difficulties exist in other cities that have approved similar ordinances.

Some city landlords have begun prohibiting tenants from smoking inside their apartments, because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. A study recently found that secondhand smoke causes at least 35,000 deaths from heart disease and 3,000 deaths from lung cancer in nonsmokers nationwide each year—and New Yorkers are even more at risk because their dense urban environment. As one tobacco expert put it: “Smoke doesn’t know to stop at a doorway. It fills the full capacity of every indoor location in which the cigarette is smoked.” So at least one major real estate company is now stepping in to stop the smoke before it starts.

This month the Related Companies will ban smoking at some of its downtown apartment buildings, though the ban will only affect new tenants, who must sign an agreement promising not to smoke inside their homes. And developer Kenbar Management will ban smoking from all 298 units in its East Harlem building when it opens next month. Its smoking ban will even extend to private and shared terraces, and tenants must also agree not to smoke on any of the sidewalks that wrap around the building!

With the city contemplating a smoking ban in public parks and beaches, some smokers are outraged about a perceived ghettoization of smoking. One tenant at a Related Companies building tells the Times, “I think it’s absolutely absurd. How about a little tolerance? Smokers have become the whipping boys for everything that’s unhealthy about living in New York City.” And Audrey Silk, founder of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment, wonders, “If we’re talking about annoying odors, where do you draw the line? What about cooking odors, from fish or curry?” It’s unclear how many deaths have been caused by second-hand fish odor inhalation.

By John Del Signore, November 16, 2009

The ban on smoking in most bars and cafes is not being adhered to nor applied properly, the government said yesterday, adding that it is launching a review of the law that was passed earlier this year after pressure from the European Union.

Health Minister Mariliza Xenogiannakopoulou said that she had noted “great gaps in the application of the smoking ban” and would be re-examining the legal framework supporting it.

At the end of last month, it was revealed that state inspectors had received more than 2,500 complaints about people violating the ban. It also emerged that some 2,200 cafe and bar owners in Athens had applied to turn their venues into all-smoking establishments but that none of the paperwork had been processed by authorities, in most cases because the applications were incomplete.

Xenogiannakopoulou said she wants to address such problems.

According to the law, which came into effect on July 1, premises smaller than 70 square meters will henceforth be either exclusively smoking or nonsmoking. Those that decide to allow smoking must have their operating licenses revised, have adequate air-conditioning units installed and display a special sticker determining their status.

Larger establishments must restrict smoking to a separate section of their premises, exceeding not more than 30 percent of the surface area. Live music venues must separate smokers from nonsmoking patrons with the use of a 2-meter-high glass wall.

As for offices, businesses employing fewer than 50 workers are obliged to ban smoking on the premises. Companies employing more than 50 people have the right to maintain smoking rooms.

Meanwhile, the president of the National Coordinating Committee against Smoking, Panayiotis Behrakis, recommended yesterday that the government not allow any exceptions to the law and ban smoking in all public places.

He also suggested that the price of cigarettes, which in Greece is lower in than many other European Union countries, should be increased with the main aim of reducing the number of youngsters who smoke, which is also particularly high in Greece.

November 11, 2009 Ekathimerini

HAZELWOOD, MO – On Tuesday, voters will decide whether St. Louis County is going smoke free. The campaigns “for” and “against” Propostion “N”, the proposed smoking ban in St. Louis County, went down to the wire Monday night. Approval of the ban would “kick-start” a ban already approved in the City of St. Louis. Aldermen made the city’s ban contingent upon passage in St. Louis County.

Hazelwood Bowl has become a sort “ground zero” of the Prop “N” resistance movement. Signs were everywhere, urging “no” votes; with regular reminders about the Tuesday’s election coming over the loudspeakers.

“It’s not that we’re condoning smoking but the fact that this is not putting us on a level playing field,” said Tom Shucart, the president of the Bowling Propietors Association. “We feel it’s an unfair proposition that has loopholes and exemptions.”

The people on the other side of the issue were out in force, too. It was ‘honk ‘em, if you don’t smoke ‘em’, from Midtown to Creve Coeur. Supporters of the smoking ban blanketed five intersections during rush hour. Their confidence grew with every beep, given the expected low voter turnout of 25% or less.

“15% and we’ll be doing good,” said Charlie Gatton of County Citizens for Clean Air. “It makes every vote count. So we’re hoping our supporters will come out and take the 30 seconds or so it takes to vote.”

St. Louis University Medical School student, Sarah Kuehnle, who was holding a sign of support at I-44 and Lafayette, said St. Louis was ready to join the trend and go smoke free.

“Absolutely, all of Illinois is, and other countries like Ireland and spain, so absolutely,” she said.

Not so fast. The resistance movement gathered at Hazelwood Bowl saw and heard constant reminders of the looming vote.

“We at Hazelwood Bowl would appreciate your support. We’re asking you to vote ‘no’,” the announcement over the loudspeakers said.

The ban would leave out casinos and bars where food sales were less than 25% of business. It hardly seemed fair at Hazelwood Bowl, where Vince Rembold of St. Charles County, said he’d been bowling and smoking for more than 25 years.

“I can’t vote in St. Louis County,” Rembold said. “But I’m asking friends to do it and family. I’m going to call my mom in a minute and ask her to vote, even though she’s a non-smoker. She does live in Florissant, and have my sister vote and my niece vote.”

If approved, the bans would take effect in 2011, giving businesses a full year to prepare.

Also on the ballot is Proposition E-911 which proposes a tax hike that would raise $16 million to replace aging emergency response equipment, including updating 9-1-1 systems so that cell phone users could be easily located. St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Bob McCulloch and dozens of other law enforcement and emergency officials are urging voters to approve Proposition E-911.

By Andy Banker
November 2, 2009

The Federal Constitutional Court’s decision stated that changes to the state’s ban, based on an appeal by a restaurant owner, can legally remain in place.

A state parliamentary decision went into effect on August 1, changing the general ban to allow smokers in pubs smaller than 75 square metres, in addition to restaurants and beer tents that create smoking sections in side rooms. Children are not allowed in smoking areas.

The state Health Ministry will now also allow smoking at establishments that can insure limited second-hand smoke with special ventilations systems.

Smoking in public areas is still strictly forbidden, according to the court.

The legislation has been roundly criticised by anti-smoking advocates, but many voters in the state were in favour of dropping the ban.

A loophole in the ban created a wave of members-only smoking clubs, but the new law no longer allows these.

While smoking was banned in bars and restaurants in most German states starting January 1, 2008, the restrictions have been widely flouted. For example, many bars in Berlin set ashtrays on the tables after dark. And legal exceptions in many states have also weakened the smoking ban.

Six months after the ban began, courts ruled against the restrictions in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg, allowing smoking in bars smaller than 75 square metres (807 square feet) where no food is served.

Many German smokers also responded by starting grassroots groups and petitions to roll back the ban.

Copyright © 2009 The Local

NEW DELHI: It was one of independent India’s most ambitious interventions to improve public health but a year since its imposition, most states
are yet to implement it, in both letter and spirit.

India’s ban on smoking in public places is yet to take off nationally. Imposed on October 2 last year, only 13 states have started an all out campaign to punish those found smoking in public.

Delhi leads the list of best performing states having challaned 11,362 people and having collected Rs 10.7 lakh in fines. Tamil Nadu fined 10,979 people found smoking in public places and collected Rs 12.63 lakh. In Gujarat, challaning was started from November across all districts. Till now, the state has collected Rs 84,090 in fines.

Chandigarh recorded 1,540 challans and till May this year, had collected Rs 3 lakh. Karnataka till April punished 2,465 people and collected Rs 1.15 lakh while Andhra Pradesh collected Rs 1.4 lakh. Goa challaned 250 smokers and Mizoram 1,173 smokers. Uttar Pradesh collected Rs 3,970 as fine from violators, Jharkhand Rs 9,000 and Punjab Rs 35,000. Kerala has challaned 1,200 smokers while Rajasthan has punished nine violators.

According to the law, those caught smoking in public places — hospitals, amusement centres, restaurants, courts, educational institutions, libraries, public conveyances, railway stations, workplaces, shopping malls, cinema halls, discos, coffee houses, pubs and restaurants would be fined Rs 200.

“Repeated reminders to many states have fallen on deaf ears. They are yet to start challaning violators, even a year after the law was imposed. Some states have been doing it on a small scale,” a health ministry official said.

Tobacco is the risk factor for six out of eight preventable causes of death. India is the second largest consumer and third largest producer of tobacco in the world.

Estimates from the National Family Health Survey III indicated an increasing prevalence of tobacco consumption in India, with 57% males and 10.9% females reportedly consuming tobacco in some form. Out of this, 32.7% men and 1.4% women are smokers. Prevalence of bidi smoking is around 54% and that of cigarette is 16%.

The Tobacco Control of India 2004 report said more than 0.8 million people die due to tobacco consumption every year. There are studies to indicate that approximately 40% of the disease burden in India is associated with some form of tobacco or other.

Around 50% of all cancer deaths in the country are due to tobacco consumption. According to a recent study published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology, smoking bans can reduce the number of heart attacks by 26% per year, particularly among young individuals and non-smokers.

“Hotels having 30 or more rooms and restaurants having seating capacity of 30 persons or more had to create a separate enclosure for smokers and a separate ventilation arrangement as per the Act. Many have done this. However, workplace smoking continues,” another official said.

At present, 9 lakh people, nearly 2,200 per day, die every year in India due to tobacco related diseases.

Copyright © 2 October 2009 Timesofindia

Moves to end cigarette displays in shops took a step forward today following a vote in the Scottish Parliament.

MSPs voted in favour of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill today as it completed stage one of the parliamentary process. The bill now returns to the Health and Sport Committee for further scrutiny before a final vote in the Parliament.

The bill’s key proposals include:

* Banning tobacco displays in shops
* Banning cigarette vending machines
* Introducing a registration scheme for retailers
* Fixed penalty notices for retailers who sell cigarettes to under 18s
* Banning orders to prevent retailers selling cigarettes if they continually flout the law

In today’s debate, Public Health Minister Shona Robison told MSPs that ending the display of cigarettes in shops would help reduce child smoking in future generations.

Ms Robison said:

“The toll of smoking on our nation’s health cannot be underestimated. For decades, too many Scots have suffered and died prematurely from smoking-related diseases.

“That’s why, as part of our drive to end this misery, we are doing all we can to stop children from starting to smoke at all.

“Our decisive action will make cigarettes less attractive and less easily available to children and I am pleased that MSPs have given the bill their backing.

“Cigarettes are dangerous – they’re not the type of product to be given pride of place in shops or available from self-service vending machines.

“Stopping future generations from smoking will help us make a huge leap forward in improving Scotland’s health and I believe these proposals help us do just that.”

Dr Laurence Gruer, NHS Health Scotland’s Director of Public Health Science and chairman of the Smoking Prevention Working Group, said:

“The ban on displays of cigarettes behind the counter has my full support. It will close a loophole which has allowed the tobacco industry to continue to advertise its dangerous and addictive products.

“It will play an important part in helping to discourage young people from ever starting to smoke and is another step towards creating a healthier Scotland.”

The Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Bill was published in February.

The bill is expected to complete its passage through the parliament by the beginning of next year. Large retailers will then have until 2011 to implement the display ban while small retailers will have until 2013.

Smoking in public places in Scotland was banned on March 26, 2006. On October 1, 2007, the minimum age for buying cigarettes was raised to 18.

A survey of over 2,000 11-14 year olds in California found that exposure to tobacco marketing in convenience stores increased the chances of a child smoking by up to 50 per cent.

The proposed rules for implementing the state’s new ban on smoking in restaurants and bars are pretty simple. There are only two.

The first proposed rule is that cigar bars, which are exempt, must file an affidavit every quarter verifying that they meet the requirements for operating as a cigar bar.

The requirements in the law include that 60 percent of gross revenue comes from alcohol and 25 percent from cigar sales, and that a humidor is on the premises.
Click to learn more…

The second proposed rule says restaurants and bars must post no-smoking signs at each entrance, at a height and location easily seen.

The signs must be at least 24 square inches, such as a 4-by-6-inch sign, be legible and include three pieces of information: the Division of Public Health’s toll-free complaint line, the statute number for the law and the Web site www.smokefree.nc.gov.

The law takes effect Jan. 2.

Follow Hagan online

Democratic U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan has launched both a YouTube channel and a Twitter account to chronicle her work in the Senate.

A recent tweet: “welcoming a great group of North Carolinians for this week’s Carolina Coffee.”

Hagan had a campaign Twitter account last year, posting about her platform, her daily travels and occasional jabs at the competition. (“This is what a Republican-run, special interest-based economy looks like,” she tweeted a year ago.)

Her YouTube channel has a pair of videos. One welcomes viewers; the other features her biography.

Others on Twitter include Sen. Richard Burr’s campaign and U.S. Reps. Virginia Foxx, Walter Jones, Sue Myrick and Patrick McHenry.

Poll gives Burr lead

Republican Sen. Richard Burr has at least a 10-point lead over his challengers, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

The Rasmussen Reports poll of 500 likely voters found Burr ahead of longtime Secretary of State Elaine Marshall 48 percent to 38 percent.

U.S. Rep. Bob Etheridge, who has been courted for the race, trails Burr 48 percent to 34 percent.

Burr leads Durham lawyer Kenneth Lewis, who like Marshall has declared for the race, by even more — 48 percent to 32 percent.

The news isn’t all great for Burr.

“Despite Burr’s early lead, however, incumbents who poll under 50 percent are generally considered vulnerable,” the pollster said.

The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Other Democrats looking at the Senate race include former state Sen. Cal Cunningham of Lexington, former Lt. Gov. Dennis Wicker of Sanford, and Chapel Hill Mayor Kevin Foy.

New SEANC officers

The State Employees Association of North Carolina elected officers at its annual convention recently.

The association has 55,000 members; 850 delegates voted on officers.

The one-year terms begin Oct. 1.

• President: Tony Smith of Morganton, a maintenance supervisor with the Department of Correction’s Foothills Correctional Institution, with 17 years of state service. (re-elected)

• First Vice President: Pat Reighard of Blowing Rock, professor emeritus of communication at Appalachian State University, retired with 30 years of state service. (re-elected)

• Second Vice President: Charles Johnson of Raleigh, a correctional captain with the Department of Correction’s Central Prison, with 17 years of state service.

• Treasurer: Cheryl Moon of Knightdale, a retired Division of Motor Vehicles hearings officer, with 30 years of state service. (re-elected)

By staff writers Mark Johnson and Benjamin Niolet, and Washington correspondent Barbara Barrett.
mjohnson@charlotteobserver.com or 919-829-4774

Except for the 3,100 clubs exempt from the 2008 Clean Indoor Air Act. And the nine casinos that still cater to smokers. And the 2,700 restaurants, bars and lounges granted exemptions in the past year.

That’s almost 6,000 establishments — including 96 restaurants and lounges and more than 150 private social clubs in the Lehigh Valley — where people can still smoke ‘em if they got ‘em. An additional 350 applications for exemptions are in process, and new ones are arriving each week.

So thousands of workers and nonsmoking customers continue to breathe second-hand smoke each day. Still, even the most dedicated anti-smoking advocates say the law is doing what it was intended to do — protecting most Pennsylvanians.

”The act, overall, has been very successful,” said Jeanne Fignar of the Partnership for a TobaccoFree Northeast Pennsylvania. ”We lost some of the battles on exemptions, but we figure more than 90 percent of workers are protected. That’s a success.”

People on both sides still are trying to get a handle on the law’s impact. It’s clear some patrons have switched watering holes, based on whether they smoke or not. But it’s less clear how much it has affected business, largely because of the recession.

Several things seem clear: The people who lobbied against the law still hate it, those who worked to get it passed say it is working, and exemptions are generating buzz.

Statewide, 2,463 places have been able to get an exemption by showing that food sales are less than 20 percent of their business and by barring anyone under 18 years old. An additional 170 have received another kind of exemption by showing they have a special smoking room with its own entrance and ventilation.

”We know some people who wanted no exceptions to the rule are frustrated, but we advocated for the most stringent Clean Indoor Air Act possible,” said state Department of Health spokeswoman Stacy Kriedeman. ”If they’re not happy with it, we suggest they contact their state legislator.”

Private clubs that hoped the ban would expand their niche say they’ve experienced no drastic increase in membership.

”It’s been sort of a double-edged sword,” said Harold Kirkhuff, president of Heights Athletic Association, Bethlehem. ”For every new member we attracted, we probably lost a member who doesn’t like all the smoke.”

The Pennsylvania Tavern Association, which lobbied heavily against the law, says most restaurants without smoking have experienced a decline in sales. But Patrick Conway, president of the 7,000-member Pennsylvania Restaurant Association, said the recession is mostly the reason.

Anecdotally, there’s been at least some shifting of business.

Edge Restaurant on Broad Street in Bethlehem experienced weekly losses of $300 to $500 when the ban hit, managing partner Fran Mantz said. He traced it to a handful of regular customers who smoked.

”They all went outside for a while, but then winter came and we lost them for good,” Mantz said. ”They come in to say ‘hi’ to the bartenders once in a while, but they want to smoke while they drink and you can’t do that here anymore.”

The customers went across the street to Ripper’s Pub, one of 40 restaurants, bars and lounges to get an exemption in Northampton County.

Mantz said he doesn’t regret the change or blame an uneven field.

”Yes, we’ve lost some business, but honestly, we’d been wanting to go nonsmoking for a few years,” Mantz said. ”This gave us a chance to blame it on the state.”

Judy Oches, director of the state’s tobacco and prevention control program, said the ban has been a success. Rather than looking at the fraction of lounges that still have smoking, she points to the more than 20,000 restaurants that no longer do, and the thousands of workplaces statewide that are universally smoke-free.

Perhaps just as important, she said, is that more people support the ban than ever. According to state surveys, 92 percent of Pennsylvanians believe secondhand smoke is harmful and 78 percent believe smoking should not be allowed in any indoor workplace — a 7 percent increase over 2006.

‘We’re proud because we know we are changing attitudes,” Oches said. ”The number of adults who smoke in Pennsylvania is down to 21 percent. Everything this past year has surpassed our expectations.”

And the granting of exemptions may soon slow. By next month, the state Department of Revenue will begin analyzing tax returns to make sure establishments comply with the 20 percent food cutoff. Scofflaws probably would be forced to go smoke-free.

”We are very pleased with the law we have,” Fignar said, ”but we’re not done.”

matthew.assad@mcall.com

610-820-6691

A NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS

More than 20,000 state eateries now ban smoking, but there are public places where smoking remains:

3,100 — private clubs statewide

2,700 — restaurants, bars and lounges granted exemptions because they serve little food and deny entry to children or have separate nonsmoking areas

9 — casinos, including Sands Casino Resort Bethlehem (on half the gambling floor)


– Source: Rendell administration

NEW YORK — From Coney Island to Central Park, banning smoking at New York City’s famous parks and beaches is the next goal of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-tobacco crusade.

Bloomberg’s health commissioner, Thomas Farley, said Monday that parents shouldn’t have to breathe smoke while standing on the sidelines of their children’s soccer games, and children shouldn’t even have to look at adults smoking, he said.

“Smoking is responsible for killing over 7,000 New Yorkers a year,” Farley said. “We don’t think it’s too far to say that people shouldn’t be smoking in parks, and to try to protect our children from getting addicted to tobacco.”

New York City wouldn’t be the first local government to ban smoking in parks — other states, counties and cities have already done it, including in Utah, Louisiana, Maine and California.

But the nation’s largest city would be among the most ambitious urban efforts — New York has hundreds of parks and 14 miles of beaches.

Bloomberg, a former smoker turned tobacco hater, has waged a war on smoking since taking office in 2002. His administration banned smoking in bars and restaurants, raised taxes on cigarettes and has tried to scare smokers with gory advertising campaigns about smoke-related health problems.

The mayor revealed Monday that his anti-smoking agenda includes scowling at smokers “with not a particularly nice look” as he passes by them when they are gathered outside of buildings.

“And social pressure really does work,” he added.

The restaurant smoking ban presented a tough political battle for the mayor, and he said recently that it would be difficult to outlaw smoking in parks.

In advocating for the 2002 ban, the city pinned its arguments on the right to a safe workplace, saying waiters, bartenders and others deserved a smoke-free environment where they wouldn’t have to worry about getting sick.

On his weekly radio show this summer, when a caller complained of having to walk through clouds of smoke in Union Square Park, the mayor sympathized but said it would be complicated to make parks smoke-free.

“It would be harder to do, harder to build a consensus, and generally I don’t think that, you know, we could get it done,” he said in July.

On Monday, Farley, who was unveiling the administration’s health agenda for the next three years, said he believed it was possible.

He said officials had not worked out whether it would be a new city law or a parks department policy.

Bloomberg issued a statement late Monday that sought to soften the idea of smoke-free parks as something he would like his administration to study, rather than a policy New Yorkers can expect to see soon.

He said he wants to understand the health hazards and said it may not be logistically possible to enforce a ban across thousands of acres of parks.

“But there may be areas within parks where restricting smoking can protect health,” he added. “We will continue to explore this and the other ideas presented in the plan.”

Smokers in City Hall Park on Monday were not alarmed by the idea. Some said they had been expecting it.

“I understand that — it’s respect for people who don’t smoke,” said Maria Rodriguez, a student taking a smoking break on a park bench. “I wouldn’t really care.”

“It wouldn’t be the greatest hardship of my life,” said Andrew Moreno, who smoked an American Spirit cigarette while on a lunch break. “Am I happy about it? No. But can I understand it? Yes.”

Copyright © 2009 Newsday

ZAGREB — The Croatian government unveiled Thursday proposals to water down new legislation banning smoking in public following a backlash from cafe and restaurant owners.

According to proposed amendments forwarded to the parliament, cafes smaller than 50 square metres (538 square feet) will be allowed to decide whether they will be a smoking or non-smoking location after meeting certain criteria.

Bigger cafes will also be allowed to have a smoking zone, provided it does not cover more than 20 percent of the establishment’s overall surface area.

Since the law banning smoking in all public places was introduced in May, managers of cafes and restaurants say their businesses are being ruined.

However the amendments will not affect restaurants and Health Minister Darko Milinovic denied that the government was caving in to pressure.

“The law is not being changed under any pressure,” Milinovic told a cabinet session. “We are still taking care of Croatia’s public interest.”

Officials have said the law was aimed at protecting non-smokers, who make up 68 percent of the country’s population of 4.4 million.

NEW ORLEANS — With the world becoming ever less welcoming for tobacco smoke of all kinds, the owners of specialty shops that sell premium cigars have converged on New Orleans with the same concerns as mass-market cigarette manufacturers — higher taxes and anti-smoking laws.

The cigars at the annual trade show of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association are not the packaged stogies found in an isolated corner of a convenience store. These are hand-rolled smokes — sometimes with Cuban seed tobacco grown in a non-embargoed country — that can go from a couple of bucks to $30 each.

“It’s tough,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director for Columbus, Ga.-based IPCRA, which represents about 1,500 tobacco stores. “People view us in the same category of cigarettes. With a cigar, it’s different. It’s a pleasurable experience. It’s socialization of sorts.”

Mark Twain once said he always tried not to smoke two cigars at once. Winston Churchill smoked cigars in peacetime and wartime. A cigar was more than just a prop for Groucho Marx. John F. Kennedy enjoyed puffing — although he barred the import of Cuban cigars during his showdowns with another cigar aficionado, Fidel Castro, who later claimed to have quit smoking. And, in modern times, Rush Limbaugh often associates himself with a premium cigar.

“The cigar continues to have a unique place in the hearts of a lot of men,” said Norm Sharp,
Advertisement
president of the Cigar Association of America, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group of distributors and manufacturers. “There are a lot of aficionados out there.”

And many detractors, including the American Cancer Society, which has said that cigars — as well as pipes — are not a safe substitute for cigarettes and carry much of the same cancer risk.

IPCRA estimates there are 12 to 13 million cigar smokers in the United States, who puff an average of two a week, ranging from several a day to the special-event-only smoker, McCalla said.

When Congress hiked cigarette taxes earlier this year, cigars did not escape the attention of lawmakers, who imposed a tax increase between about 5 cents and 40 cents per cigar. The industry now fears that state legislatures, many of which are trying to close big budget gaps, will follow suit.

“Tobacco is considered low-hanging fruit for taxation,” Sharp said.

And cigars are among the active targets for anti-smoking groups.

Although only Delaware, Washington state and Utah ban puffing in tobacco establishments, the city of Galveston, Texas, recently passed a clean air ordinance that forbids smoking in a planned cigar lounge — a store that provides a room for cigar-lovers to visit and enjoy their tobacco.

Owner Charlie Head, who plans to open Sept. 1 after his previous store was wiped out by Hurricane Ike, said it’s ridiculous to think people who don’t smoke would even come inside his business, which includes lockers for smokers to store their cigars and liquor they bring in.

“We’re going ahead with it,” Head said. “But a big part of our business is locker rental.”

Head said he hoped to win an exemption for his shop before the ban takes effect on Jan. 1.

Even before the spread of cigarette smoking bans, cigars and pipes received a chilly reception in many places. Airliners that used to permit cigarettes wouldn’t allow cigars and pipes. And many smoking bars today are actually cigarette-only bars — don’t light up that cigar or pipe, a sign often says.

As a result, cigar smoking has become largely a private activity, McCalla said, with the cigar lounge or cigar bar a popular gathering place.

“Most cigar smokers would like to sit down comfortably and smoke with others,” he said.

The recession has cut into business, said Doug Winston, manager of the New Orleans Cigar Co., a 700-square-foot store in the downtown district. To start with, go-outside-to-smoke rules are making shorter cigars more popular.

“With the tax and the economy, people also seem to be going to the lesser-expensive cigars,” Winston said.

As for the convention itself, which is hosting about 4,000 people through Wednesday, smoking will be allowed in the exhibit hall between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. But members of the public aren’t invited to the meeting — and no one under 18 will be let in, McCalla said.

Copyright: Contracostatimes

ELKHART — Nearly three hours of debate ended without a single change. The Elkhart city council voted 5-4 against an exemption that would have allowed smoking inside bars and pubs, so long as they only allowed those over the age of 21 inside.

Democrat Dave Osborne joined Republicans Brian Thomas, David Henke and Mary Olson voting in favor of the proposed changes. Democrats Ron Troyer, Brent Curry, Tonda Hines, Ralph Bean and Council President Rod Roberson voted against it.

City leaders passed the original smoking ban in April 2008, but bars had one year to comply.

Since the ban went into effect in May 2009, many bar owners across the city claim their profits have gone “up in smoke.”

“It’s just been like a light switch,” said Cathy Braddock of Hunter’s Place on South Main Street.

“Our profits are down between 30 percent and 40 percent over the last two months. Monday nights used to be one of the busier nights. And, you can see here, I have two tables,” she said, pointing to her mostly empty restaurant space beyond the bar.

Braddock is convinced the city’s smoking ban is the main reason why.

She’s not alone.

Dozens of bar owners and bar employees were “fired up” at city hall Monday — part of a standing room only crowd of more than 125 people that spilled out into the hallway of the council chambers.

“Don’t we matter? Don’t we matter?” asked Barney’s Bar and Brownstone Lounge owner Ron Diller. “Please give us our rights to run our own businesses back.”

But others argued workers and nonsmoking patrons have rights, too.

“No worker should have to choose between a paycheck and their health,” argued one.

Mayor Dick Moore (D) agreed, telling the council he would veto the proposed amendment if it was passed.

“The bottom line is that, smoking — second-hand or not — kills. And, I think the council recognized that,” he said.

But, bar owners like Patrick Curtin of PC’s Bar and Grill argue their businesses are dying too.

“It’s already dropped over 50 percent, and I look for it to drop some more. I had to let two people go already, and I’m hoping to be able to save one more, but I may have to let her go too,” he said. “This is just very frustrating, and wrong to do this to us small business owners.”

Without the exemption, Curtin and others are now worried they’ll be forced to close their doors.

“There’s nothing we can do now. What is there left to fight about? You break the law, you’re going to pay the fine,” he said.

And, supporters promise they’ll be watching to make sure that happens.

“The enforcement of this law, that’s what we need to do,” said Elkhart Minority Health Coalition spokesperson Tara Morris.

Morris and Moore both argue that there is no proof that bars are losing business because of the smoking ban.

“We did our own research. We went to those bars and said to the patrons outside, is this a smoke free environment? They said yes. We asked, how do you feel about it? They said, it’s great. We don’t mind standing out here, because we come here for the atmosphere,” Morris said.

“Most of us who did not favor this amendment tonight fell that it’s probably economic downturn (to blame for lower profits at bars). I feel that not nearly as many of them will fail as what we heard here,” agreed Moore.


Copyright © 2009 Southbendtribune

A drive to put the smoking ban to a statewide vote suffered a major setback Thursday when the secretary of state’s office rejected the petitions because not enough valid signatures were submitted.

But the question of when cigarettes will be permanently banned in bars and casinos still is up in the air. In fact, smoking might continue for weeks or months if the case goes to court.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said the petitions designed to put the smoking ban to a vote in 2010 fell 221 valid signatures short of the required number.
Advertisement

Nelson said he will give formal notification of the petition failure to its sponsors early next week.

Attorney General Larry Long, meanwhile, is researching whether the law becomes effective immediately, takes force at a later date, or remains inactive pending the outcome of a possible court challenge.

“The statutes are not particularly illuminating about when it will go into effect now that there has been a late determination of an insufficiency of signatures,” Long said.

He added that he thinks opponents of the ban will file a lawsuit challenging Nelson’s decision.

“A judge will very likely enter a stay until that challenge is heard,” Long said. That will keep the smoking ban from being enforced for weeks or longer, until the issue is decided in court.
Deciding the next step

Don Rose, owner of Shenanigan’s Pub in Sioux Falls, said the worst thing the state could do is put a smoking ban in force temporarily.

“Either go one way or the other,” he said.

Since opponents of the ban have the option of challenging Nelson’s decision in circuit court, they could still get a judge’s order to overrule the secretary of state and put the measure on the ballot.

Larry Mann, who represents a coalition of bars and gambling businesses that filed the petitions, said Thursday that the group has not decided whether to file suit. That decision could be made as early as today, he said.

“I expect we will have that discussion very soon,” Mann said.

Rose insisted that court action is a next step.

“We are going to pursue it. No question about it,” he said.
Advertisement
8,845 bad names

The Legislature passed a law earlier this year to ban smoking in bars, Deadwood casinos and video lottery establishments.

A coalition representing bars and gambling businesses needed 16,776 valid signatures to put the issue to a vote. They filed petitions with 25,400 signatures June 22.

But on July 2, a group of health advocates filed documents challenging the validity of 9,891 signatures.

“We upheld 8,845 of those challenges,” Nelson said Thursday. “We found those to be legitimate. Subtracting that from the 25,400 signatures left us 221 signatures short of what was needed to be filed.”

Jennifer Stalley, director of government relations for the American Cancer Society and project director for South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids, said the confidence of initiative opponents ebbed and flowed as they plowed through signatures over five days.

“But we always thought we had a valid challenge,” she said. “We did not ask the secretary to undertake this as an exercise in futility.”

Stalley said she is comfortable with a timetable that has the attorney general scrutinizing when the smoking ban goes into effect.

“This is a process. When the people (seeking signatures to get a repeal on the ballot) used their part of the process, they asked for patience. We asked for patience as we used our part. It is only fair to be patient now as the secretary of state and attorney general determine when it goes into effect.”

However, she added: “I assume they are talking a matter of days, not months.”
First-time challenge

This is the first time the nonjudicial challenge method has been used in a statewide petition, Nelson said, and foes of the initiative heavily scrutinized the signatures.

“For some lines they would raise three or four or five different reasons (that the signature was invalid),” he said. “We had to make a judgment on each reason. A huge number of signers simply were not registered voters in South Dakota.”

Other signatures omitted data that people circulating petitions could have readily asked signers to include, Nelson said. And finally, “Notaries made a lot of mistakes.”

Mann said Nelson’s decision is ripe for a legal challenge.

“It is interesting to me this issue has become the most scrutinized petition ever submitted to the state of South Dakota.”
Advertisement
Confidence in review

Both Stalley, talking about initiative opponents “working 24-7 for five days” challenging signatures, and Nelson, ruefully announcing that after reviewing those challenges “we are not looking forward to this on a regular basis,” suggest how painstaking the process was.

But Nelson added that he is confident his office can present a clear record of what was done if the issue lands in court.

He also said the detailed review of signatures in the smoking ban appeal appears to uphold the methodology the secretary of state commonly uses in assessing petition drives by looking at only a 5 percent sample of those.

“I was always comfortable that 5 percent was accurate. But I never had a way of verifying it. This gave me a method to verify 5 percent was good.”

Stalley said that as the smoking ban goes into effect, the next step for proponents such as the American Cancer Society is to help businesses put it in place.

“There is a role for us to play in understanding the law and smoothing implementation,” she said.

The American Heart Association has worked in conjunction with the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network for almost a decade to promote smoke-free air in the state.

“This was the right decision by the secretary of state,” said Darrin Smith, senior advocacy director for the American Heart Association in South Dakota. “We are very pleased that he and his staff took a very serious look at the signatures we challenged. They went through a lot of work, and we appreciate it.

“Hopefully the people of South Dakota can breathe smoke-free air very soon.”

House Minority Leader Bernie Hunhoff noted the unusual depth of support for the smoking ban as Republican and Democratic caucus leaders in both the House and Senate signed on to sponsor the bill.

Hunhoff also hailed the news that the initiative challenging the ban failed.

“It’s good news for everyone in South Dakota who breathes air,” he said.

Sen. Majority Leader Dave Knudson said he thinks the effort expended by opponents and proponents of the smoking ban, and by the secretary of state, “kind of indicates the process is working.”

Opponents of the smoking ban had every right to challenge it, Hunhoff said. “But gathering that number of signatures is always difficult.”

Now opponents “need to realize the time has come. … Embrace the law and move into the 21st century,” Hunhoff said.

Reach reporter Peter Harriman at 575-3615.

Turkey banned smoking in bars, restaurants and other closed spaces today, following the example of European Union countries including Italy, Ireland and the U.K.

The ban, which came into effect at midnight, extends legislation that outlawed smoking in workplaces, shopping malls, schools and hospitals in May 2008.

About 35 percent of adult Turks smoke, including more than half the men in the country of 72 million, according to figures from the Health Ministry in Ankara. That compares with about 26 percent of EU citizens who smoke regularly, according to a European Commission study published in March.

Turkey’s government collects about $8.5 billion a year in taxes on tobacco products, and spends about half that amount treating smoking-related illnesses, according to Toker Erguder, who runs the World Health Organization’s tobacco-control project in Turkey.

The perception that Turks are inseparable from their tobacco is enshrined in several European languages in which the phrase “to smoke like a Turk” denotes heavy consumption.

“Smoking is one of the most pressing needs of a Turk,” the French novelist Theophile Gautier wrote after a visit to Istanbul in 1852.

The Turkish cigarette market may shrink about 5 percent as a result of the ban, Hurriyet newspaper reported today, citing an executive at British American Tobacco Plc’s unit in the country. BAT and Philip Morris International Inc., the world’s largest publicly traded cigarette maker, are among companies that make cigarettes in Turkey.

Nine-tenths of Turks support the smoking ban, according to a survey of 600 people by Istanbul-based Quirk Global Strategies published this month. More than half of respondents also said they were concerned that the ban won’t be properly enforced, according to the survey.
Copyright © 2009 Bloomberg

On Tuesday, I asked you “Do you think hotels are too tough on smokers?,” which proved to be a hot Smokingbanpg-horizontal topic even though it’s been almost three years since Marriott became the largest hotel operator to ban smoking in all its hotels.

Hands-down, I’d say the most eyebrow-raising comment came from reader Zipptydoda, who revealed a way to beat the ban (and risk of being charged a $250 room cleaning fee by Marriott hotels). Here is what Zipptydoda wrote:

“When I go to a non-smoking hotel such as Marriott, the first thing I do when I get to the room is light up. Then after I finish my cigarette, I go down to the front desk and complain that the rooms smells of smoke. When the ask me if I would like to switch rooms I say, ‘No, I just unpacked. Please make a note of it.’ I then proceed to smoke for the rest of my stay,” Zipptydoda wrote. “I have never been charged a smoker’s cleaning fee.”

Other comments from smokers:

* I won’t give hotels that ban smoking my business: Readers such as Bfeely and Riteonglor, wrote that they refuse to give hotels that ban smoking their business. Reader Bfeely, for instance, wrote that “When I stay in a hotel, I am a ‘guest,’ but also a paying one.”
* I smoke but prefer to stay in rooms with fresh air: Reader Kelli Crean wrote that even as a smoker she prefers to stay in a non-smoking hotel room, but she’d like to avoid smoking outside on the curb “like a delinquent.”
* The business case for banning smoking in hotels: Reader and hotelier Doreaw wrote that smoking rooms “are your least desirable…and people only take them if they are desperate.” They also cost more to maintain, with cigarette burns sometimes ruining carpet or furniture, she wrote.”You would be surprised how often this occurs in smoking rooms,” Doreaw wrote. “I certainly was.”
* Go further with hotel smoking bans: Reader gersh94 criticized people who light up in non-smoking rooms and appreciates the bans since “you cannot control where the smoke goes, or the stink you leave behind.” Gersh94 complained about a Le Meridien hotel in France where, even though the room was a non-smoking room, the pool allowed smoking.

Readers: Do any of the comments above influence your thinking on the subject?
Smokers: Have you ever paid a cleaning fee because you violated a hotel’s smoking ban?
Copyright © 2009 Usatoday

A recent poll has indicated that employers, their employees and customers generally support the to-be-implemented smoking ban in cafes, bars and restaurants.

The survey, conducted by the Association of Public Health Experts (HASUDER) revealed widespread support for the new ban. The study showed that 89.9 percent of all employers and employees of establishments that will be smoke-free areas under the law are in favor of the ban. Their customers also showed strong approval of the law, which will come into effect on Sunday. A full 85.9 percent of respondent customers said they support the application of the ban.

With the amendment made to Law 4207 on Prevention of Tobacco’s and Tobacco Products’ Harms, smoking will not be permitted in indoor sections of cafes, bars, restaurants and the like. The operators of such businesses will be responsible for monitoring their clients’ compliance with the law and reporting any violation by telephoning the closest police station or by directly calling 184, the Ministry of Health’s Communication Center (SABİM). Any violation on the part of operators and clients will be penalized by fines of TL 560 to 5600 and TL 69 respectively.

Since popular backing is considerably high behind the new regulation, as HASUDER’s survey revealed, it is widely believed to be a noteworthy success in the fight against smoking. The recent survey also showed that there is not an information gap on the part of business owners about the new regulation. Fully 60.6 percent of all employers interviewed as part of the survey were reported to be active smokers. Turkey has a huge tobacco market, with immense domestic production, and almost 30 percent of its population are active smokers.

According to the survey, the support for the ban is high among smokers, too. Respectively, 86.5 percent and 76.2 percent of such employees and customers back the ban and think that there is just cause to ban people from smoking indoors for the sake of non-smokers, who extended even greater support for the ban.

Assessing HASUDER’s findings, Professor Hilal Özcebe drew attention to strong popular support for the ban and said a non-smoker who is in a room where people smoke is affected as much as if he smoked a pack of 20 cigarettes. In that regard, she underlined that being with smokers in closed-door areas is equally as harmful as smoking.

Meanwhile, a previous ban went into effect on May 19 prohibiting smoking in shopping malls and was found to have no effect on the number of visitors to such places, according to another study carried out in a large shopping mall in Ankara.

South Dakota’s state-wide smoking ban is getting closer to either becoming law or going to a vote.

The Secretary of State’s office has now spent six days going through signatures after the Tobacco Free Kids Network questioned whether enough of the signatures collected by ban opponents are legitimate.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson and three others are combing through some 9,800 signatures that were red-flagged by smoking ban proponents. Nelson says the process will take time.

Four workers are going through 383 pages of questionable signatures. They’re about a quarter of the way through.

“Because on a number of lines they’re claiming that the person is either not registered or an inactive voter and so on each of these claims we have to verify that against the database,” Nelson said.

If there’s still a question, the Secretary of State’s Office then contacts the county where the voter is registered.

“This is what we call a non-judicial challenge, it’s never occurred on a statewide ballot issue before so this is a little bit of new territory for us,” Nelson said.

Nelson wouldn’t comment on how many of the signatures have turned up to be invalid, but did say not all of the red-flagged signatures will be thrown-out.

“It’s fair to say that not all of the 8,800 or 8,900 of the challenged signatures are bad but they certainly aren’t all good either,” Nelson said.

And once the verification process in complete, the issue may eventually be decided by a judge.

“From there…whichever side loses out at that point certainly has a right to go to court,” Nelson said.

Smoking ban opponents needed about 17,000 valid signatures on their petition to put the ban to a public vote. The group tuned in nearly 25,000 signatures two weeks ago.
Copyright © Keloland

The iconic image of the US soldier, muddy and tired, with a cigarette hanging from his mouth, could become a thing of the past if the Pentagon accepts new calls for a ban on tobacco products in the military.

An Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, requested by the Pentagon and the Veterans Association, says the adoption of a tobacco-free policy could make the military “virtually tobacco-free within 20 years.”

The report found the proportion of smokers in the US armed forces is higher than in the civilian population, with around 32 percent of soldiers using tobacco products, compared with 20 percent of civilians.

Military personnel on deployments were twice as likely to be smokers than home-based counterparts, the report said, adding that the Defense Department spent 564 million dollars in 2006 treating tobacco-related illness in the military.

“There are numerous reasons why the military would support the goal of becoming tobacco-free, such as improved military readiness, better health of force, and decreased health-care costs,” the report said.

At the Pentagon, spokesman Bryan Whitman declined to offer specific comment on the study’s findings, but said the Department of Defense (DoD) has long recognized the health effects of smoking.

“We’re not behind the curve at all,” he said. “The fact of the matter is the federal government and the US military were the first to go smoke-free in their office buildings.”

But the study criticized the military for the “contradiction” between its expressed support for a smoke-free military and its continued subsidies of tobacco products sold on military bases.

“The committee believes that DoD should not be selling products that are known to impair military readiness and health, and it recommends that these sales be eliminated on all military installations,” the report says.

But the study acknowledged the difficulty of phasing out smoking, noting that the habit has “long been associated with the image of a tough, fearless warrior.”

It suggested the Pentagon consider gradually phasing out the subsidised sale of tobacco products on US military bases and that it implement a series of tough anti-smoking measures, starting with new recruits.

The report suggests entrance to military training programs should be contingent on officers giving up tobacco use during their active-military careers.

“Shortly after or simultaneously… a similar plan could be established for new enlistees,” the report said.

If the ban was gradually extended to include all enlistees, backed by extensive smoking cessation assistance, the study predicts the military would be tobacco-free within 20 years, or even sooner.

Pentagon spokesman Cynthia Smith said that the department “supports the goal of a tobacco-free military, and believes it is achievable through the development and execution of a comprehensive plan as recommended by the IOM report.”

“We look forward to using the committee’s findings and recommendations as we address this challenging health and readiness issue,” she said.
Copyright © 2009 Iol.co

Beginning today, smoking will be banned in all areas of the Greystone Park and Ancora psychiatric hospitals, with similar bans to follow at three other state psychiatric facilities, Human Services Commissioner Jennifer Velez said.

Smoking already is forbidden inside state psychiatric hospitals. The measure extends the ban to outdoor areas and affects patients, employees and visitors.

The ban comes 15 months after Gov. Jon Corzine signed legislation that divided the state’s mental health community; proponents praised the health benefits for patients while opponents said the ban it violates patients’ civil rights.

“This initiative mirrors what is being done at hospitals, medical centers and corporations throughout the country and supports the Division of Mental Health Services’ efforts to embrace a system which focuses on wellness and recovery,” Velez said.

Deputy Human Services Commissioner Kevin Martone cited a national study from 2006 that showed people with mental illness live an average of 25 years less than the general population. Some 75 percent are estimated to be addicted to nicotine, contributing to the premature death, the study found.

“That’s not acceptable. Our intent is to increase the life-spans of our patients, not to shorten them,” Martone said. “As providers of health care, our state psychiatric hospitals should treat the illness, whether it is schizophrenia, nicotine dependence or high blood pressure.”

Mental health professionals have said a smoking ban has benefits: improved patient and staff health; decreased tension and violence at supervised smoking breaks; elimination of a black market in cigarettes; and more time for treatment and programs. They also say psychotropic drugs administered to patients will work better.

Patient advocates, however, called for voluntary stop-smoking programs. Just as the rest of society has the right to disregard doctors’ orders on smoking, psychiatric patients have the same right, they said. They also argued a ban would worsen the black market for cigarettes, making them more costly and putting patients more at risk in trading money, favors or sex for cigarettes.

“These are not regular hospitals. Many of these people are not there by choice but are committed against their wills, sometimes for long periods of time” Carolyn Beauchamp, president of the Mental Health Association in New Jersey, said last night.

“We’re not in favor of smoking, but we think in these particular settings there should be some different standards that consider the rights and needs of these patients,” she said.

The smoking bans at Greystone, in Parsippany, and Ancora, in Hammonton, were instituted after more than a year of smoking cessation programs aimed at preparing patients and staff, Martone said. Educational information also has been posted and distributed throughout all state hospitals and to family members.

“We have been taking gradual steps to lead up this day,” Martone said. “It should be no surprise to anyone.”

Martone said most general hospitals in the state ban smoking, including many that have in-patient mental health units. He also noted about half the state psychiatric hospitals nationwide do not allow smoking.

The Department of Human Services plans to extend the smoking ban to the Hagedorn Psychiatric Hospital in Glen Gardner, the Trenton Psychiatric Hospital and Ann Klein Forensic Center in Trenton, though no dates have been announced. The five state psychiatric hospitals serve a total of more than 2,000 patients.
Copyright © 2009 Nj

The head of the Turkey Coffeehouses and Cafes Federation says the forthcoming ban on smoking in public places could cost industry workers their jobs.

Federation President Murat Agaoglu said when the ban officially goes into effect July 19, the nearly 1 million people employed in the industry could be facing the potential loss of their jobs, the Anatolian Agency reported Monday.

Agaoglu said the ban would only put additional stress on an industry already struggling during the worldwide economic downturn.

“At the moment coffeehouse owners are very worried because the implementation of the smoking ban will completely kill an already stagnant business,” Agaoglu said.

“We are already struggling to put bread on our tables due to the economic crisis. With this ban we will have to shutter our businesses and join the army of the unemployed.”

The federation official advocated for the creation of separate smoking and non-smoking areas for coffeehouse customers, the news agency said.

“Smokers and non-smokers would be separated. Isn’t the whole point of this ban to protect non-smokers from smoke? The new law doesn’t even allow for that,” Agaoglu said.
Copyright © 2009 Upi

The College of Coastal Georgia has banned the use of tobacco on campus.

The rule applies to students, faculty, staff and visitors —- making the college one of 160 in the nation to go totally tobacco-free.

Valerie Hepburn, president of Coastal Georgia, which is transitioning from a two-year community college into the state’s newest four-year school, said the college is focused on raising awareness through signs, information on its Web site and a partnership with local health agencies to offer smoking cessation classes to faculty and staff.

Signs announcing the tobacco ban are up at campus entrances.


Copyright © 2009 Ajc

The non compliance with the smoking prohibition in public places, which was approved last Wednesday by the Angolan government, will imply fines that vary from 5 to 10 minimum salaries.

This measure covers institutions of central and local administration, hotels, restaurants, airports, night clubs, telephone booths, train stations and public toilets, said to the press the director of the legal department of the Ministry of Public Administration, Employment and Social Security (MAPESS), Jesus Maiato, on the fringes of the meeting of the Cabinet Council.

According to the decree of the government, it will only be allowed to smoke in places where the smoker is alone and therefore he/she will not harm the health of other people.

In restaurants and similar services, as long as there are conditions, it may be created areas for smokers. No Smoking signs must be fixed in these establishments.

The inspection of the accomplishment of this legal diploma will be carried out by the entities which are conferred public authority, namely labour and trade inspectors, police officers and inspection officials.

The regulation of the Decree will establish the way the services and inspection officials of the public administration will intervene.

Jesus Maiato underlined the fact that it is the first time the Angolan legal order releases an instrument that forbids people from smoking in public places.


Copyright © Portalangop