BRIDGETOWN, Barbados– A ban on smoking in public in Barbados takes effect on October 1st, with fines and imprisonment chosen as punishment for illegal smokers. Proprietors of buildings who allow people to smoke won’t be getting off the hook, either, because they too will be prosecuted.

The announcement came yesterday from the country’s Health Minister, Donville Inniss, who said that the anti-smoking legislation that will give teeth to the ban has been approved by Cabinet and will be taken to parliament soon, as the government seeks to protect citizens from the harmful effects of second-hand tobacco smoke.

“This new legislation is the most significant piece of public health legislation to be completed over the last ten years and will positively impact on individuals, families, employers and employees,” he said during his ministry’s breakfast meeting on the Prohibition of Tobacco Smoking in Public Places. “This legislation is also showing our commitment as a government to the workers of Barbados, particularly in the service and tourism sectors.”

Under the proposed law, smokers found guilty of breaking the law face a maximum BDS$500 (US$250) fine or a 12-month prison term, or both.

Proprietors and operators of bars, restaurants, shops, hotels, government buildings and other public buildings will also be expected to comply with no smoking legislation and will face stiffer penalties if they don’t.

In addition to generally not allowing people to smoke in their establishments, they can forget about creating any special areas for smoking.

“If you wish to go and build an air-conditioned smoker room, understand that that too is against the law because the place is substantially enclosed,” Inniss explained.

Senior Medical Officer with responsibility for Chronic Diseases, Dr Kenneth George, added that neither the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control nor the anti-smoking legislation makes provisions for any designated areas for smokers.

Those found guilty of allowing people to smoke in a public place could be fined as much as BDS$5,000 (US$2,500), be sent to prison for 12 months, or both. If they fail to display no-smoking signs in at least two prominent places, as specified in the law, or stop inspectors assigned to ensure laws are being enforced from doing their job, they face similar punishment

The ban will no doubt raise questions about a person’s constitutional right to smoke.

But the Health Minister has made it clear that the rights of others must also be respected.

“It is a fundamental right of our citizens to live, work and play in clean and wholesome environments. While the legislation does not prevent the smoker from lighting up, it provides for a smoke-free environment for Barbadians and, indeed, visitors alike,” he said.

Responding to concerns about the effect of the no-smoking ban on the tourism sector, Inniss said he did not believe smoking in public places was a consideration for visitors.

He predicts there won’t be any fallout. In fact, he said, there may even be an increase in business if it is promoted that Barbados is moving towards becoming a smoke-free environment.

“Evidence has shown from other jurisdictions that such action as prohibition of smoking in public places has actually resulted in increased business for many of these establishments,” Minister Inniss said.

Before the smoking ban takes effect, the Ministry of Health will be engaging in a comprehensive public education programme.

Chief Medical Officer Dr Joy St John said the educational campaign will include training, public service announcements and community outreach. Additionally, she said, officials from the Ministry, along with environmental health officers, will be visiting businesses to ensure the pending regulations are clearly understood.

Two years ago, San Francisco became the first city in the nation to ban the sale of tobacco products in drugstores like Walgreens. Now, The City will consider expanding the ban to include grocery stores with on-site pharmacies.

The restriction is the latest in a number of proposals that has San Francisco moving toward being a smoke-free city. The City recently adopted legislation expanding the no-smoking areas throughout San Francisco, an effort to reduce the number of tobacco-selling permits has been debated, and an adjustable litter fee of 20 cents was tacked onto the purchase price of every pack of cigarettes.

The ban in 2008 prompted Philip Morris USA Inc. and drugstore chain Walgreen Co. to file separate lawsuits against The City to strike down the law. The legal efforts were not successful.

“Cigarettes and chewing tobacco are a tiny fraction of the products sold, and pharmacies should be selling medicine and helpful items, not items like cigarettes that kill you,” said Supervisor Eric Mar, who introduced legislation Tuesday that broadens the tobacco ban. “It sends the strong message that we are a city that promotes healthy living and stores should sell products with some accountability to the public.”

It’s unclear how many existing businesses would be impacted. Safeway, for example, has 10 locations in San Francisco with pharmacies, according to the company’s website.

Legislation enacting the ban in 2008 was introduced by Mayor Gavin Newsom and approved by the Board of Supervisors in an 8-3 vote. Opponents said the law would have little effect since within a short walk of these targeted businesses there are liquor shops selling tobacco.

The 2008 law drew criticism for being unfair in only going after one type of business while there are grocery stores with pharmacies that would continue to sell tobacco products.

Department of Public Health Director Mitchell Katz said at the time that the law focuses on pharmacies where “the case was the strongest” for the ban since they are “health-promoting businesses.”

The legislation would require approval by the Board of Supervisors to become law.

Bill Johnson predicted calamity if the City Council extends the smoking ban to his little bar at the corner of Babcock and Callaghan. “I will close the doors. I’ll have no choice,” he said, leaning a little into the microphone.

He was one of the dozens — many of them tavern and pool hall workers — who tore into the proposed ordinance at a June 10 public hearing.

Johnson also is one of three principals behind the San Antonio Mixed Beverage Association, a nearly memberless organization that exists solely to fight the strengthening of San Antonio’s ban. Indeed, political organizer JoAnn Ramon’s handiwork, paid for by SAMBA, accounted for some of the turnout of opponents that night.

Wildly controversial PR consultant T.J. Connolly wasn’t in council chambers, but he’s also working for the association, handling its communications.

Lobbyist Ken Brown, who stood off to the side of the standing-room-only crowd, helped incorporate SAMBA as a nonprofit a year ago. The organization is one of his firm’s clients. Reynolds American, an arm of tobacco giant R.J. Reynolds, is another.

So there’s a haze hanging over this scene.

It’s a strategy Big Tobacco commonly uses in its never-ending fight against “smoke-free” ordinances: Find common cause with tavern owners.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with coalition-building. Proponents are doing the same thing, and they, too, have their lobbyist and communications and political strategists.

But if tobacco companies stand behind the opposition — so far behind that they’re invisible — that’s a problem. Unless you’re a fan of hidden agendas.

Councilman Justin Rodriguez, who introduced the ordinance in April, suspects that tobacco is bankrolling SAMBA. “Who’s going to be impacted the most? Tobacco companies,” he said. “They don’t want their fingerprints on it. But, come on, it’s not rocket science.”

Johnson said there’s no tobacco money flowing through SAMBA, and that he, his wife-business partner and another bar owner are the sole principals behind the group.

When I asked how, as owners of small taverns, they could afford their own campaign, Johnson answered: “I drive a Corvette, my wife drives a Cadillac and we own a 2008 Tundra.”

Johnson isn’t new to these kinds of fights. He testified in the Legislature in 2007 and 2009 when lawmakers toyed with a statewide smoking ban.

Brown, too, is a veteran of the tobacco war. Reynolds American hired him in 2008 to fight a similar smoke-free proposal in Corpus Christi. One of his jobs was to coordinate with bar owners. That fight also featured an opposition group that materialized for the occasion: the Corpus Christi Bar Operators’ Association.

The ordinance passed anyway and went into effect last year. Nevertheless, Johnson said he hired Brown after hearing good reviews of his work from friends in Port Aransas and Corpus Christi.

Brown sees his job now as nearly the same one he performed in 2008: helping to stitch together a campaign to stop the proposed ban.

Apart from the bar owners, the opposition includes the San Antonio Restaurant Association — and presumably M. Edward Lopez, a lobbyist representing Fast Eddy’s pool halls in San Antonio and an arm of Philip Morris USA in Austin.

“We have regular conference calls with someone from the restaurants, someone from the bars, someone from — whoever wants to join our coalition, we’re happy to have them,” Brown said. “I just don’t think anybody would be surprised that businesses are trying to protect their business, just like the bars, just like the tobacco companies.”

Just don’t expect to see Big Tobacco when it’s time to step up to the microphone.

By Greg Jefferson
Mysanantonio, 26 Iuni 2010

JEDDAH: The Council of Ministers urged the General Authority of Civil Aviation (GACA) to ban smoking at all airports and their facilities in the Kingdom on Monday. It also advised GACA to impose a fine of SR200 on people who violate the new regulations.

The Cabinet meeting, chaired by Crown Prince Sultan, deputy premier and minister of defense and aviation, approved the recommendations of the 150-member Shoura Council.

Although the Kingdom passed anti-smoking regulations in August 2003, the habit is growing among its population. There are six million smokers in the country who puff away SR8 billion every year. According to one report, smoking-related diseases kill at least 33 people in the Kingdom each month.

Saudi Arabia ranks fourth in the world in terms of cigarette consumption and 41st in terms of population. As many as 13 billion cigarettes are imported into the Kingdom every year.

About 10 percent of the Kingdom’s total smokers are women and 19.3 percent are teenagers. Studies have shown that 13 to 15 percent of young men and women live with smokers and are subjected to passive smoking.

The Cabinet meeting reviewed the current foreign tour of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah and hoped his visits to Canada, the United States, Morocco and France would produce results.

The Cabinet referred to the launch of Ghazal-1, the first Saudi car designed by King Saud University students, adding it boded well for the Kingdom’s decision to invest in a knowledge economy.

The Cabinet decided to sign an accord with South Africa for the repatriation of convicts and accused in criminal cases.

It also approved the contracts that were signed to carry out a major housing project in Jazan, accommodating people displaced as a result of attacks by Yemeni intruders last year. The project includes 6,000 housing units, 31 mosques, 35 schools, five health centers and infrastructure facilities.

By ARAB NEWS
Jun 21, 2010

Many of us work in smoke-free offices, eat in smoke-free restaurants, even drink in smoke-free bars or outdoor cafes. But if we live in an apartment, should the whole building also be smoke free?

In an essay this week in The New England Journal of Medicine, public health and legal experts call for banning smoking in all public housing complexes, even within individual units. They say there is no safe level of exposure to passive smoke, and that even if one person in the building smokes, others are exposed to secondhand smoke and to toxic gases and carcinogens from tobacco.

“Smoke does not know to stop at a door” and moves wherever air moves, wafting down hallways and elevator shafts and seeping through ceiling cracks and air ducts to contaminate the whole building, said Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, one of the paper’s authors and an associate professor of pediatrics at MassGeneral Hospital for Children. He recently coined the term “third-hand smoke” to describe the toxic chemical residue of cigarettes that clings to one’s hair and clothing and to carpets and upholstery, even after smoke has cleared the air.

“If we’re going to protect bartenders in restaurants, if we’re going to protect healthy adults who go to work and enjoy a smoke-free workplace, we had better also protect infants, children, pregnant women and elderly people who may have just had a heart attack,” Dr. Winickoff said. He notes that people do not always know they’re being exposed to passive smoke because some of the harmful compounds do not carry the telltale tobacco smell that alerts nonsmokers to their presence.

Smokers’ rights groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying it was based on questionable scientific premises and represented an intrusion on the cherished right of people to do what they wish in the privacy of their own homes. “He wants us to believe we’re having an effect on people’s health through air ducts?” said Audrey Silk, founder of the group NYC-CLASH, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment. “These people have an agenda — a smoke-free society.”

Late last year, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development issued a statement “strongly” encouraging the 3,200 public housing authorities around the country to implement nonsmoking policies in some or all public housing units. As of a year ago, roughly 100 authorities and housing commissions had implemented nonsmoking policies in their buildings, according to the Smoke-Free Environmental Law Project of the Center for Social Gerontology, a state-funded anti-smoking group.

Studies have found measurable levels of nicotine in the apartments of nonsmokers, said John Spengler, a professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. He said the issue of neighbors smoking has caused conflicts in high-priced condo complexes.

“It’s a thorny policy question and social question,” Dr. Spengler said, adding he foresees some private housing complexes adopting smoking policy covenants in the future. “Some people will respond that it’s a person’s right to do what they want in their own property. But then I pose there’s the question: where is the response of the state government to protect those who can’t protect themselves?”

In their essay in the medical journal, Dr. Winickoff and his co-authors, Mark Gottlieb of the Public Health Advocacy Institute at Northeastern School of Law and Michelle M. Mello of the Harvard School of Public Health, note that the 2006 Surgeon General’s report on passive smoking concluded there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. They note that the National Toxicology Program has identified over 250 toxic gases, chemicals and metals in tobacco smoke, including 11 class A carcinogens linked to cancer.

Toxins are distributed through the air and then deposited on indoor surfaces like rugs and furniture, where they can be picked up by young children. Older and ill people may also be at increased exposure because they spend so much time indoors. The particulates are subsequently re-emitted into the air. Studies have found that children who live in households with a smoker have higher levels of certain nicotine byproducts in their urine than nonsmoking adults, possibly because they have closer contact with contaminated surfaces or a different response to toxins, and that this may put them at increased risk of cancer later in life.

Exposure to smoke is a cause of sudden infant death syndrome and can trigger asthma attacks, Dr. Winickoff said. Epidemiologic studies have linked secondhand smoke to lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmoking adults, he said.

Another benefit of smoking bans might be to reduce fires and fire-related injuries and deaths. In multi-family dwellings, smoking is the leading cause of fire deaths, accounting for a quarter of all fire-related deaths in 2005. A smoking ban might also curb smoking initiation among teenagers, who would see less of it and may be less likely to pick up the habit as a result, the writers argue.

But smoking rates are also higher among residents of public housing, which could make enforcement difficult; Americans who live below the poverty level are 1.6 times more likely to smoke than other Americans. The essay calls for continuing to make smoking cessation tools, including nicotine patches and gum, available to low-income residents so they can quit the habit.

“We’re not saying smokers shouldn’t live in public housing or multi-unit housing – it’s the act of smoking itself we need to limit,” Dr. Winickoff said. “We don’t want to penalize anyone for being a smoker. But about 70 percent of smokers want to quit, at any given time.”

By RONI CARYN RABIN
Nytimes, June 18, 2010

Egypt, the biggest Arab consumer of cigarettes, is beginning an attempt to ban smoking in public places.

Alexandria is to be Egypt’s first no smoking city, beginning with a ban on lighting up in government buildings.

Egyptians smoke some 19 billion cigarettes each year, prompting concerns for public health.

And Egypt is a nation of smokers with traditional shisha water pipes found in many coffee shops, and persuading Egyptians to quit will be a challenge.

It is common to find people puffing at cigarettes on the train, in office, even in hospitals.

Now in Alexandria that is set to change. The local authorities first plan to enforce an existing law – one that is usually flouted – prohibiting smoking in government buildings.

They say that within two years, the ban will be extended to include cafes.

Dr Hassan Salam from the University of Alexandria is heading the research.

“Smoking in Egypt is very common, unfortunately. Out of every 10 men, four smoke and more and more women are smoking now.

“The statistics show that Egyptians smoke about 19 billion cigarettes a year. It’s a big public health problem.”

Bans on smoking in public places have now been successfully introduced around the world. But officials admit it will be a particular challenge to force Egyptians to quit.

They hope new restrictions will at least make them cut back – and that Alexandria can set an example for the rest of the country.

By Yolande Knell
BBC News, Cairo

If foreign antismoking activists had not criticized the tobacco sponsorship of US singer Kelly Clarkson’s concert in Jakarta next week, would Indonesians even have noticed?

Given the prevalence of tobacco advertising throughout the country, probably not.

Ricky Pesik, secretary of the Jakarta chapter of the Indonesian Association of Advertising Agencies, said “tobacco companies remain some of the biggest spenders on advertising.”

Figures from Nielsen Media Indonesia back this up, showing that tobacco firms were in the top 10 of advertising spenders in all types of media in the first quarter of the year.

The report shows advertising for clove cigarettes was among the top five, with Gudang Garam the third biggest buyer of television commercial slots with total spending of Rp 73 billion.

Ika Jatmikasari, associate director of Nielsen Media Indonesia, said makers of clove cigarettes spent Rp 377 billion ($42 million) in the first quarter of 2010, 8 percent more than the Rp 349 billion spent in the same period last year.

LA Lights, the canceled sponsor for Clarkson’s concert, was among the top 15 for cigarette advertising in the first quarter of the year for its clove cigarettes, with manufacturer Djarum spending billions of rupiah.

But with companies facing more restrictions on placing advertisements in the mass media, Ricky said they were shifting their advertising budgets to sponsorships instead, such as of concerts and other events that provide “an interactive channel for the product with the consumer.”

“There’s a concept of ‘brand experience’ introduced by sponsoring events,” he said.

The report shows that there has been a 35 percent decrease in spending on advertising clove cigarettes in all types of media, including a percent decline in television commercial spots and a 53 percent decrease in print media advertisements.

The chairman of the National Commission for Child Protection (Komnas Anak), Seto Mulyadi, said the move to withdraw LA Lights’ sponsorship for the concert should be the impetus for Indonesia to ban smoking in public spaces. “Not only music, but other events, even sports, are often sponsored by cigarette producers,” he said.

Many events in Indonesia, the world’s fifth-largest tobacco market, are still sponsored by cigarette companies, including the country’s main football league.

Tobacco companies also sponsor several music festivals and often are seen handing out cigarettes at those events, even though they are mainly handed out in areas restricted to people aged 18 and older.

Seto said activists should use the momentum of LA Lights’ sponsorship withdrawal to step up the antismoking fight.

“This is a good momentum, along with the Alicia Keys concert a few years ago,” he said.

Two years ago, a tobacco affiliate of US-based Philip Morris International, which dominates Indonesia’s tobacco market, removed its logo from advertising promoting an Alicia Keys concert in Jakarta after the singer publicly denounced the sponsorship and apologized to her fans.

A study by Komnas Anak in 2007 found that almost half of the teenage smokers polled said they had taken up the habit because of advertising. The study also found that tobacco companies had sponsored 1,350 youth-oriented events from January to October in 2007.

Indonesia, a country with about 240 million people, has yet to ratify the UN Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, an international treaty that became law in February 2005. The framework’s 152 ratifying nations have to implement effective methods to reduce tobacco use.

The Ministry of Health is preparing two bills regarding cigarettes; one to ratify the UN framework and another on controlling the negative health effects of tobacco. A spokesman for the ministry’s legal division said the bills had been given priority to be passed by the House of Representatives.

Indonesia sells a pack of cigarettes for less than $1, making it one of Asia’s cheapest markets, compared with Singapore, where a pack costs $5.

Thejakartaglobe, April 23, 2010

DAMASCUS, Syria — A smoking ban that few are expected to abide by went into effect in Syria Wednesday, a country where people light up even in hospitals.

The ban targets most public places such as restaurants, cafes, schools, universities, hospitals, parks, movie theaters, museums and public transport.

The law, which also forbids the sale of cigarettes to minors, was approved six months ago by President Bashar Assad, a British-trained eye doctor.

The Middle East’s favorite pastime — smoking water pipes — is also prohibited in public under the new law except in well-ventilated and designated areas. Also outlawed are tobacco advertising and the sale and import of sweets and toys modeled after tobacco products.

Offenders will face fines ranging between $45 and $870 and a possible three to 12 months in jail.

“The ban is good, but I doubt I will stop smoking,” said businessman Bassam Shanna, 47.

The ban’s effects are already being felt in Damascus’ famous cafes.

The normally bustling indoor area of the Nowfara Cafe in the city’s downtown area was almost entirely empty on Wednesday.

“Fifty people would be sitting here if it weren’t for the ban” complained the manager, Shadi Rabbat.

However, the cafe’s terrace was crowded with some 50 customers smoking water pipes.

“We hope the government will reconsider the ban,” said another cafe owner who refused to give his name because he feared reprisals by the authorities.

Syria had in the past taken steps to try to restrict smoking, including a 1996 decree issued by Assad’s late father, President Hafez Assad, that banned smoking in government offices, hospitals and the airport.

A 2004 law banned smoking in internet cafes and another law in 2006 made buses, railway stations, movie theaters, parks and cultural centers smoke-free, with violators facing a fine of about $10 and three months in jail. But the bans were often flouted and not strictly enforced.

This time, however, more sweeping measures were being taken, reflecting Syria’s desire to join other Arab countries struggling to control smoking with bans and anti-smoking campaigns.

Fines are also steeper this time round — the fine for smoking in a cafe is $45 while it goes up to a staggering $870 in five-star hotels.

Health ministry officials will be frequently carrying out on site inspections to ensure the law was being observed in public places.

“It’s a chance for me to seriously try to quit smoking,” said Mohammed al-Kash, a sociology professor at Damascus University. “I am fully committed to the ban.”

Three million people — or 15 percent of Syria’s 23.5 million population — smoke. As much as 23 percent of these are university students, according to figures published in the state media. Syrians are thought to spend $565 million a year on smoking.

Other Arab countries are also struggling to create a more smoke free environment.

In the tobacco-loving Arab world, people smoke in offices, universities, taxis, hair salons and even hospitals and smoking has long been a social imperative and a rite of passage for young men.

Packs can cost as little as 50 cents in some Arab nations.

Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and most recently Iraq have imposed restrictions on smoking in public, but the bans vary in scope and enforcement.

The Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, for example, has no laws banning smoking in government offices or public places, and government employees — including President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad — regularly smoke in their offices.

Jackson City Council President Frank Bluntson wants to make Jackson completely smoke free, but not everybody is onboard.

“I’ve been getting lots of calls from black bar owners. They say, ‘Mr. Bluntson, you are going to put us out of business,’ ” he said.

Bluntson shrugged. “It’s a public health issue,” he said, adding that he does not think the effect on businesses will be that severe.

Upset with lax enforcement of a partial smoking ban that went into effect more than a year ago, Bluntson said he plans to toughen the law with a smoking ban similar to the ones adopted in surrounding municipalities. All he needs is the votes.

The council was split on the issue in 2008 with some, like Bluntson and then-Council President Leslie McLemore favoring a total ban. Others worried about the effect it would have on businesses.

Council members Jeff Weill, Marshand Crisler and Margaret Barrett-Simon helped pass a compromise position that allowed smoking in limited circumstances in bars.

That partial ban covers most public places but exempts “stand-alone bars,” establishments defined as making less than 25 percent of gross revenue from food. That should mean smoking is allowed only in bars where beer is the only alcohol sold, since state law requires any establishment serving wine and liquor to make a quarter of its money from food.

But the city has not enforced the ordinance and a Clarion-Ledger investigation into some of Jackson’s larger establishments found breaking the city law was the rule, not the exception. Several business owners said they were unaware the law applied to them and that the city has done little to explain the ordinance.

With evidence the partial ban is not working, Bluntson wants to move ahead with an outright ban he believes will be less confusing and easier to enforce. The council’s new configuration may help.

Ward 5 Councilman Charles Tillman, a proponent of a total ban last time, is onboard this time as well.

“A healthy city is a prosperous city,” he said.

This time, Weill, having heard the complaints of restaurant owners about poor compliance with the partial ban, has voiced support for a total ban of indoor smoking. The swing votes will come from new council members Chokwe Lumumba and Tony Yarber.

Lumumba, a civil rights attorney, said he is concerned with possible civil liberties issues with a total ban.

“I would have to give that a little more thought and probably would have to hear from my constituents on that,” he said.

Yarber could not be reached for comment.

Barrett-Simon has been noncommittal but voted against a total ban last time.

Ward 3 Councilman Kenneth Stokes remains the staunchest opponent of a smoking ban in any form. Although he does not smoke, he said someone on the council has to stand up for the rights of smokers.

Stokes said it is not up to him to tell people not to smoke.

“It’s a sad sight to see people at the university hospital having to walk all the way to the street in the wintertime, some of them pulling medication, those drips and everything, to go smoke because it is a public building,” he said.

More than 30 cities in the state have smoking restrictions and the number of metro-area cities with total bans is growing.

Brandon, Clinton, Flora and Ridgeland have banned smoking in public places. Madison restaurants have a voluntary ban, but the mayor is pushing to make the ban official.

Ridgeland went smoke free almost three years ago.

“Overall, I think it has been a good thing. We haven’t had any complaints whatsoever,” said Tim Cook, manager of the Parker House Restaurant. “We have an outdoor patio area for people who do want to smoke, so we aren’t alienating anybody.”

Amanda Butler, bartender at the Pelican Cove Grill near the Ross Barnett Reservoir, called the Ridgeland ban “ridiculous.”

“It does hurt us. We have a lot of smokers out here,” she said.

Butler said the ban makes it hard for her customers to smoke even in the grill’s outside areas. “It is kind of hard to find anywhere to smoke these days,” she said.

Bluntson said he would put the revised ordinance on Tuesday’s council agenda.

Tillman said enforcement is the problem with the current ordinance. If a total ban is enforced fairly, it can work, he said.

After President Obama’s negative comments about Sin City and his subsequent mea culpa (“I love Vegas — always have!”), I realize that this might not be the most prudent way to start a column. But how do you fire up a discussion about smoking in hotels without mentioning America’s capital of secondhand smoke?

Azita Arvani recently returned from a trade show in Las Vegas, where she requested a nonsmoking room at her resort. It didn’t matter.

“Smoke came in through the central air conditioning units,” said Arvani, a Los Angeles technology consultant. “I usually don’t have any problems with hotels and smoking. Except when I go to Las Vegas.”

That makes two of us. I’ve never been to Nevada’s largest city without spending at least a few moments of every day gasping for fresh air.

And that includes my last visit in January, when I couldn’t escape the cloud of carcinogens that seemed to follow me almost everywhere I went.

There’s good news for nonsmoking hotel guests: The scales are about to tip in your favor this summer when Wisconsin’s Act 12 takes effect, and the Badger State becomes the first in the nation to ban smoking in all hotels. Wisconsin joins a long list of other states that have, to one degree or another, limited hotel guests’ lighting up. In fact, only 13 states have no smoking restrictions, according to Ryan Patrick, an analyst at MayaTech Corp. in Silver Spring who tracks state legislation for various public buildings, including hotels.

“Many hotel chains have also banned smoking at their hotels voluntarily,” he said. Among them are Westin Hotels & Resorts, which became the first smoke-free brand in early 2006. Marriott followed later that year, and Sheraton Hotels & Resorts put up the “no smoking” signs in 2008.

Not everyone is happy with the limits. Some hotel owners, for example, believe that going smoke-free might hurt business. The Wisconsin Innkeepers Association, a trade group for the state’s hotels, is trying to amend Act 12 to allow hotels to designate up to a quarter of their rooms as smoking.

“Customers are asking for smoking rooms,” said Trisha Pugal, the association’s president. “We’re afraid if there are no smoking rooms, they’ll go over to another state or they will smoke in the rooms, anyway.”

Guests who smoke aren’t likely to be pleased, either. “With any rule or regulation, someone will find a way around it,” said Derek McElroy, the general manager for the Doubletree Hotel Boise Riverside in Boise, Idaho.

Here’s how smokers circumvent the rules: After checking in, they light up in their rooms and flush the evidence down the toilet. Then they phone the front desk to complain about the odor of cigarette smoke, and when an employee offers to move them, they decline, saying they’ve already unpacked.

“However, the guest has just established that it was a previous guest who smoked in the room — not they — and any chance of charging the smoking fee has gone out the window,” McElroy told me. “And God save the poor desk clerk who goes back in the records to back-charge the previous guest who stayed in that room.”

Nonsmoking guests in adjoining quarters don’t have a lot of options when they’re hit with noxious fumes, even with the new laws, said Kathleen Dachille, director of the Legal Resource Center for Tobacco Regulation, Litigation and Advocacy at the University of Maryland School of Law. Your best bet is to complain immediately.

Typically, a hotel will offer to move you to another room or, if the property is full, send you to another hotel without charging you extra, a process known as “walking” in the hotel industry. “If none of these remedies work, you send a letter to corporate and they’ll send you a voucher for a free room,” Dachille added.

Given the new rules, can an aggrieved guest find relief in court? Not really, Dachille said. You might have a claim under the Americans With Disabilities Act, involving so-called “third-hand” smoke, or smoke residue left on surfaces and objects even after a cigarette has been extinguished. But it would be a tough fight and probably not worth the effort, she said.

Still, on balance, more hotels than ever are in the nonsmoking camp today.

“Smokers are a dying breed,” said Travis Johnson, who manages the Morgan hotel in San Simeon, Calif., and who notes that cigarettes can be an expensive habit for the unfortunate traveler with a nicotine addiction. If guests at the Morgan are caught lighting up, they’re charged a $150 cleaning fee.

I, for one, am breathing easier now that smoking in hotels is on its way out. I’ve lost count of the number of smoking rooms I’ve stayed in. The odor of stale cigarettes takes weeks to wash out of my clothes. I don’t begrudge smokers their right to puff away — just please, not in the bed I’m about to sleep in.

Turns out that even some Las Vegas resorts are sensitive to their image and are doing everything they can — short of banning cigarettes — to ensure that nonsmoking guests don’t have to breathe lungfuls of toxic air.

The hotel I stayed in, the upscale Aria Resort & Casino in the gleaming new CityCenter, reportedly has a special ventilation system that’s designed to keep cigarette smoke away from blackjack dealers.

I’d call that a winning hand.

By Christopher Elliott, Washingtonpost
March 28, 2010

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