articles about smoking

http://www.prnewswire.com

An overwhelming 72 percent of St.
Paul citizens support their new smoke-free law, according to a new survey
released by the Ramsey Medical Society today.
Strong supporters of the new smoke-free law, which prohibits smoking in
all St. Paul restaurants and bars, outnumber strong opponents by more than
a 3-to-1 margin. Sixty percent favor the law strongly and 12 percent favor
it somewhat, for a total of 72 percent supporting the law. At the same
time, 18 percent oppose the law strongly and 7 percent oppose it somewhat,
for a total of 25 percent opposing the law.
"The opponents of this law have been boisterous, but a large majority
of St. Paul citizens value the health benefits of the law and want to keep
it as is," said Roger Johnson, chief executive officer of the Ramsey
Medical Society.
In a survey conducted about three months after the law was implemented
on March 31, 2006, 84 percent of respondents indicated that they considered
secondhand smoke a serious or moderate health hazard, and 73 percent do not
want the law changed.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents also said they now go out to St.
Paul bars and restaurants as much or more than they did prior to the
smoke-free law. More respondents said that they go out more frequently (27
percent) than less frequently (12 percent).
Compared to the period before the law, 58 percent of respondents said
their experience in local establishments has been more enjoyable, with only
12 percent saying it was less enjoyable.
When it comes to the new law, St. Paul citizens are finding a lot to
like. A strong majority agree that bar and restaurant workers should be
protected from exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace (82 percent
agree), and that the establishments are healthier for customers and
employees now that they are smoke-free (86 percent agree).
"St. Paul's smoke-free law is obviously good news for workers and
customers," said Johnson. "But there is good news for the hospitality
industry, too. St. Paul citizens now find their local restaurants and bars
healthier and cleaner, and they are frequenting them more often. The
smoke-free law has made our great city even better."
Opponents of the law have stressed the rights of tobacco users to smoke
inside public gathering spots. But by more than a 7-to-1 to one margin,
respondents indicated that the rights of customers and workers to breathe
clean air is more important than the rights of smokers to smoke inside
public gathering spots.
"When you're in a smoke-filled restaurant, bar or bowling alley, you
are involuntarily smoking other people's cigarettes, and that can be
dangerous," said Johnson. "Now that St. Paul citizens have the right to
breathe safe smoke-free air, they don't want anyone to take that right
away."
The survey was sponsored by the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota
through a grant from the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco.
The surveys were conducted by The Mellman Group, an independent research
firm based in Washington, D.C. Among the Mellman Group's dozens of other
clients include the federal Health Care Financing Administration, which
oversees Medicare and Medicaid and the U.S. Departments of Justice, State
and Labor. The Mellman Group also conducts polls for respected news media
outlets, such as Fortune magazine.
To read the entire results for the survey, visit http://www.mpaat.org .
Methodology
The Mellman Group of Washington, D.C., conducted a survey of 500
registered voters in the City of St. Paul, who were interviewed by
telephone June 26-30, 2006. The poll has a weighted sample size of 400, and
includes oversamples in some city council wards. The study used a
registration-based sample including all registered voters in St. Paul. The
margin of error for this survey is +4.9 percent at the 95 percent level of
confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups.
The Ramsey Medical Society is the professional society of physicians in
all specialties and medical students with over 1,500 members in Ramsey,
Washington, and Dakota Counties.

http://www.prnewswire.com

An overwhelming 72 percent of St.
Paul citizens support their new smoke-free law, according to a new survey
released by the Ramsey Medical Society today.
Strong supporters of the new smoke-free law, which prohibits smoking in
all St. Paul restaurants and bars, outnumber strong opponents by more than
a 3-to-1 margin. Sixty percent favor the law strongly and 12 percent favor
it somewhat, for a total of 72 percent supporting the law. At the same
time, 18 percent oppose the law strongly and 7 percent oppose it somewhat,
for a total of 25 percent opposing the law.
"The opponents of this law have been boisterous, but a large majority
of St. Paul citizens value the health benefits of the law and want to keep
it as is," said Roger Johnson, chief executive officer of the Ramsey
Medical Society.
In a survey conducted about three months after the law was implemented
on March 31, 2006, 84 percent of respondents indicated that they considered
secondhand smoke a serious or moderate health hazard, and 73 percent do not
want the law changed.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents also said they now go out to St.
Paul bars and restaurants as much or more than they did prior to the
smoke-free law. More respondents said that they go out more frequently (27
percent) than less frequently (12 percent).
Compared to the period before the law, 58 percent of respondents said
their experience in local establishments has been more enjoyable, with only
12 percent saying it was less enjoyable.
When it comes to the new law, St. Paul citizens are finding a lot to
like. A strong majority agree that bar and restaurant workers should be
protected from exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace (82 percent
agree), and that the establishments are healthier for customers and
employees now that they are smoke-free (86 percent agree).
"St. Paul's smoke-free law is obviously good news for workers and
customers," said Johnson. "But there is good news for the hospitality
industry, too. St. Paul citizens now find their local restaurants and bars
healthier and cleaner, and they are frequenting them more often. The
smoke-free law has made our great city even better."
Opponents of the law have stressed the rights of tobacco users to smoke
inside public gathering spots. But by more than a 7-to-1 to one margin,
respondents indicated that the rights of customers and workers to breathe
clean air is more important than the rights of smokers to smoke inside
public gathering spots.
"When you're in a smoke-filled restaurant, bar or bowling alley, you
are involuntarily smoking other people's cigarettes, and that can be
dangerous," said Johnson. "Now that St. Paul citizens have the right to
breathe safe smoke-free air, they don't want anyone to take that right
away."
The survey was sponsored by the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota
through a grant from the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco.
The surveys were conducted by The Mellman Group, an independent research
firm based in Washington, D.C. Among the Mellman Group's dozens of other
clients include the federal Health Care Financing Administration, which
oversees Medicare and Medicaid and the U.S. Departments of Justice, State
and Labor. The Mellman Group also conducts polls for respected news media
outlets, such as Fortune magazine.
To read the entire results for the survey, visit http://www.mpaat.org .
Methodology
The Mellman Group of Washington, D.C., conducted a survey of 500
registered voters in the City of St. Paul, who were interviewed by
telephone June 26-30, 2006. The poll has a weighted sample size of 400, and
includes oversamples in some city council wards. The study used a
registration-based sample including all registered voters in St. Paul. The
margin of error for this survey is +4.9 percent at the 95 percent level of
confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups.
The Ramsey Medical Society is the professional society of physicians in
all specialties and medical students with over 1,500 members in Ramsey,
Washington, and Dakota Counties.

http://www.prnewswire.com

An overwhelming 72 percent of St.
Paul citizens support their new smoke-free law, according to a new survey
released by the Ramsey Medical Society today.
Strong supporters of the new smoke-free law, which prohibits smoking in
all St. Paul restaurants and bars, outnumber strong opponents by more than
a 3-to-1 margin. Sixty percent favor the law strongly and 12 percent favor
it somewhat, for a total of 72 percent supporting the law. At the same
time, 18 percent oppose the law strongly and 7 percent oppose it somewhat,
for a total of 25 percent opposing the law.
"The opponents of this law have been boisterous, but a large majority
of St. Paul citizens value the health benefits of the law and want to keep
it as is," said Roger Johnson, chief executive officer of the Ramsey
Medical Society.
In a survey conducted about three months after the law was implemented
on March 31, 2006, 84 percent of respondents indicated that they considered
secondhand smoke a serious or moderate health hazard, and 73 percent do not
want the law changed.
Eighty-seven percent of respondents also said they now go out to St.
Paul bars and restaurants as much or more than they did prior to the
smoke-free law. More respondents said that they go out more frequently (27
percent) than less frequently (12 percent).
Compared to the period before the law, 58 percent of respondents said
their experience in local establishments has been more enjoyable, with only
12 percent saying it was less enjoyable.
When it comes to the new law, St. Paul citizens are finding a lot to
like. A strong majority agree that bar and restaurant workers should be
protected from exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace (82 percent
agree), and that the establishments are healthier for customers and
employees now that they are smoke-free (86 percent agree).
"St. Paul's smoke-free law is obviously good news for workers and
customers," said Johnson. "But there is good news for the hospitality
industry, too. St. Paul citizens now find their local restaurants and bars
healthier and cleaner, and they are frequenting them more often. The
smoke-free law has made our great city even better."
Opponents of the law have stressed the rights of tobacco users to smoke
inside public gathering spots. But by more than a 7-to-1 to one margin,
respondents indicated that the rights of customers and workers to breathe
clean air is more important than the rights of smokers to smoke inside
public gathering spots.
"When you're in a smoke-filled restaurant, bar or bowling alley, you
are involuntarily smoking other people's cigarettes, and that can be
dangerous," said Johnson. "Now that St. Paul citizens have the right to
breathe safe smoke-free air, they don't want anyone to take that right
away."
The survey was sponsored by the Association for Nonsmokers-Minnesota
through a grant from the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco.
The surveys were conducted by The Mellman Group, an independent research
firm based in Washington, D.C. Among the Mellman Group's dozens of other
clients include the federal Health Care Financing Administration, which
oversees Medicare and Medicaid and the U.S. Departments of Justice, State
and Labor. The Mellman Group also conducts polls for respected news media
outlets, such as Fortune magazine.
To read the entire results for the survey, visit http://www.mpaat.org .
Methodology
The Mellman Group of Washington, D.C., conducted a survey of 500
registered voters in the City of St. Paul, who were interviewed by
telephone June 26-30, 2006. The poll has a weighted sample size of 400, and
includes oversamples in some city council wards. The study used a
registration-based sample including all registered voters in St. Paul. The
margin of error for this survey is +4.9 percent at the 95 percent level of
confidence. The margin of error is higher for subgroups.
The Ramsey Medical Society is the professional society of physicians in
all specialties and medical students with over 1,500 members in Ramsey,
Washington, and Dakota Counties.

http://www.examiner.com

Montgomery County - The Restaurant Association of Maryland is disputing a report that said restaurant sales continued to increase following a countywide smoking ban law passed in 2003.

The report, released Monday, said restaurant sales across the county have increased more than 19 percent since October 2003, when the smoking ban took effect. The report was made by Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews and former Council Member Ike Leggett, a Democratic candidate for County Executive.

But Melvin Thompson, vice president for government relations for RAM, said in an e-mail that the methodology behind the report “makes no sense,” adding that several restaurants, including Anchor Inn Seafood in Wheaton, Dietle’s Tavern in Rockville, Buffalo Billiards in Gaithersburg, and Montgomery’s Grille in Bethesda were “forced completely out of business by the smoking ban.”

The report, which said that sales rose from $57.7 million in the year before the 2003 ban to $68.8 million two years later, was based on sales tax receipts for all restaurants in Montgomery County, Andrews said Monday. The data was compiled by the Office of the State Comptroller.

But Thompson said the report is misleading because it would include data from carry-out establishments, pizza delivery stores, coffee shops and other fast food places that already were smoke free.

Data from those restaurants were included, Andrews said.

“The reason for the law is not to help or hurt restaurants,” Andrews said. “The reason for for the law was to protect restaurant workers and restaurant patrons.”

http://www.examiner.com

Montgomery County - The Restaurant Association of Maryland is disputing a report that said restaurant sales continued to increase following a countywide smoking ban law passed in 2003.

The report, released Monday, said restaurant sales across the county have increased more than 19 percent since October 2003, when the smoking ban took effect. The report was made by Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews and former Council Member Ike Leggett, a Democratic candidate for County Executive.

But Melvin Thompson, vice president for government relations for RAM, said in an e-mail that the methodology behind the report “makes no sense,” adding that several restaurants, including Anchor Inn Seafood in Wheaton, Dietle’s Tavern in Rockville, Buffalo Billiards in Gaithersburg, and Montgomery’s Grille in Bethesda were “forced completely out of business by the smoking ban.”

The report, which said that sales rose from $57.7 million in the year before the 2003 ban to $68.8 million two years later, was based on sales tax receipts for all restaurants in Montgomery County, Andrews said Monday. The data was compiled by the Office of the State Comptroller.

But Thompson said the report is misleading because it would include data from carry-out establishments, pizza delivery stores, coffee shops and other fast food places that already were smoke free.

Data from those restaurants were included, Andrews said.

“The reason for the law is not to help or hurt restaurants,” Andrews said. “The reason for for the law was to protect restaurant workers and restaurant patrons.”

http://www.examiner.com

Montgomery County - The Restaurant Association of Maryland is disputing a report that said restaurant sales continued to increase following a countywide smoking ban law passed in 2003.

The report, released Monday, said restaurant sales across the county have increased more than 19 percent since October 2003, when the smoking ban took effect. The report was made by Montgomery County Council Member Phil Andrews and former Council Member Ike Leggett, a Democratic candidate for County Executive.

But Melvin Thompson, vice president for government relations for RAM, said in an e-mail that the methodology behind the report “makes no sense,” adding that several restaurants, including Anchor Inn Seafood in Wheaton, Dietle’s Tavern in Rockville, Buffalo Billiards in Gaithersburg, and Montgomery’s Grille in Bethesda were “forced completely out of business by the smoking ban.”

The report, which said that sales rose from $57.7 million in the year before the 2003 ban to $68.8 million two years later, was based on sales tax receipts for all restaurants in Montgomery County, Andrews said Monday. The data was compiled by the Office of the State Comptroller.

But Thompson said the report is misleading because it would include data from carry-out establishments, pizza delivery stores, coffee shops and other fast food places that already were smoke free.

Data from those restaurants were included, Andrews said.

“The reason for the law is not to help or hurt restaurants,” Andrews said. “The reason for for the law was to protect restaurant workers and restaurant patrons.”

http://hot-cigs.com/news/Jul-11-2006/Smoking.979.html

The surgeon general declared the debate over last week on whether secondhand smoke kills people, but the local debate on whether to ban smoking in restaurants and other public places continues. "Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard at any level," Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in a 700-page report.

Throughout Johnson County, Carmona's report appears to have had an impact on city leaders, and the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, the biggest lobbyist against smoking bans, is surveying members about their views following the report.

Olathe

Olathe City Council is closest in the county to acting on a smoke-free ordinance. The council voted 5-2 last week to create a task force, charged with looking at details of the ordinance, Mayor Michael Copeland said.

The task force is expected to present results by Sept. 1. The council will make a decision then, Copeland said Monday.

"Obviously, the report has very, very compelling information that deserves attention," he said. "I'm hopeful that information will be considered when the council makes its decision in September."

Copeland said he supports smoking restrictions, though the city would not be liable if a lawsuit is filed in connection with hazards of a public smoking environment.

Councilman John Bacon said, "The only thing that surprised everybody about the new report was that it was just a little stronger emphasis than what was heard in the past. It was a little more forceful. I don't know that it changes a whole lot.

"We all knew (secondhand smoke) was harmful. I still think the task force is a good idea. Several council members were not ready to move forward with an ordinance. We thought a community group would be helpful to see how the ordinance would affect people.

Bacon said he does not believe the city should take people's rights away without studying the necessity.

"A lot of people testified that we would be taking people's rights away," he said.

Bacon said businesses, not the city, would have to cope with potential lawsuits arising from secondhand smoke.

"It's an employer's responsibility to provide a healthy environment and that's where the liability would stop," he said.

Overland Park

The Overland Park City Council has discussed smoking bans several times over the past few months, Councilman Terry Goodman said.

"With the surgeon general's report, it is going to be something we have to discuss sooner than later," Goodman said. "I have no idea what the outcome might be."

Goodman said he asked John Thompson, Community Development Committee chairman, about putting the smoking ban discussion back on the agenda.

"I've not had an opportunity to read the (surgeon general's) report, other than newscasts," Goodman said. "My feeling all along has been that I would like to see Overland Park move toward a ban. The report added to the importance of moving in that direction. I'm hopeful our city might provide some leadership in this area."

Goodman said he came away from the last discussion thinking most council members rejected a ban on smoking in public establishments.

"That was one of the reasons I did not push it at the time. I felt it would be a setback that was best avoided," Goodman said. "Perhaps opinions on our council are evolving and as we move ahead this may receive more favorable consideration."

Thompson said the Carmona offered "a significant report and probably will have repercussions."

The committee met last night and is expected to put the issue on a future agenda, Thompson said.

"This is an ongoing issue and I don't think it's been put to rest. Overland Park is looking at this issue the same as other municipalities are and is evaluating the city's current position.

The city has been discussing the issue for several years and the committee has had several presentations, allowing public discussion of a change, Thompson said.

The biggest concern has come from the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, with regard to any economic impact on restaurants and bars if there is not a countywide ban, Thompson said.

The association reported there would be an economic impact if Overland Park enacts a much more stringent code than surrounding cities have. Overland Park is surrounding by Leawood, Lenexa, Olathe, Prairie Village and Shawnee.

The KRHA Website lists R.J. Reynolds and Altria Group, two of the biggest cigarette manufacturers, among sponsors.

The association has lobbied the Kansas Legislature and has spoken at some Olathe City Council meetings against a smoking ban.

"The primary argument is concern for the business community and would our restaurants and bars be placed at a competitive disadvantage and run risks of losing a significant portion of business to adjacent business that did not have a ban," Goodman said.

Results of a countywide survey headed by County Commissioner Delores Furtado showed 80 percent of people eating out chose a non-smoking area and more than half of smokers chose to go to the non-smoking areas. The Johnson County Social Behavior Survey, conducted in the spring, received 1,393 responses from 2,400 surveys.

"There are probably studies on both sides," Goodman said. "Some indicate businesses would suffer; other studies indicate business would improve. I come down on the side of the ledger that business may improve."

Leawood

Leawood city staff is drafting a smoking ordinance and the city plans to conduct hearings over the next two months, City Administrator Scott Lambers said.

"The ordinance has several moving parts," Lambers said.

With 1.9 percent of the county population, the city must be careful to coordinate with border cities, he said.

"I have no doubt that more stringent restrictions on smoking in public places are coming," Lambers said. "I hope we will be able to do it in cooperation with other cities."

Lambers said he favors a smoking ban but would like to see the entire metropolitan area participate.

"It can do nothing but help raise awareness of the effects of smoking on health," he said.

Lambers said the surgeon general's report presents "a very powerful case against smoking and has acted as a catalyst for the cities to take up the issue." He said he hopes neighboring cities cooperate.

"In a perfect world, smoking would be illegal. In a less-than-perfect world, it would be banned in public places," said Lambers, whose father died after a two-pack-a-day habit and whose wife is allergic to smoke.

Kevin Jeffries, president and CEO of the Leawood Chamber of Commerce, said, "We are not very supportive of a Leawood-only ban. It would probably disproportionately damage our members."

The Leawood Chamber would support a metrowide ban, Jeffries said.

"That would be a level playing field for all restaurants in the Kansas City metropolitan area," he said.

Kansas City, Mo., has passed a smoke-free ordinance to take effect only when 85 percent of area cities pass similar ordinances. Jeffries said he hopes city leaders "go back to the drawing board."

Jeffries would not speculate on whether a smoke-free ordinance would be good for customers and employees.

"I am not in a position to say. I'm not a scientist," Jeffries said.

The surgeon general's report will add to documentation for the Leawood City Council later this month. The information will include all no-smoking ordinances in Kansas, Jeffries said.

"I hope the city can learn from the city of Olathe, which is moving faster than Leawood," he said. "We can learn from them and go through a similar process."

OTHER CITIES

Shawnee City Council has discussed the issue but is taking a "wait and see" position as other cities deal with the controversial issue of smoke-free establishments.

Former Countryside Mayor Ken Davis, whose community now merged with Mission, said the surgeon general's report "should bolster the need to have the matter taken seriously in the community."

Davis sat on the Mission task force when the city council voted 4-3 against an ordinance to ban smoking restaurants and bars.

"The economic impact on the food industry is the bottom line," Davis said. "They think it would affect business but it has not had a negative effect on business elsewhere. And not a single Mission resident spoke against the ordinance."

Davis had lung cancer surgery in 2002.

"It's time (for cities) to step up to the plate, do the right thing and stop stalling," Davis said. "A number of states and cities have adopted no smoking policies, including Roeland Park, Fairway and Mission Woods."

Prairie Village has passed an ordinance which would take effect if surrounding cities also adopt smoke-free laws. But Davis said the city is "delegating its authority to surrounding cities."

Overland Park has an ordinance but exempts restaurants and bars existing prior to the enactment March 1, 2000. The city needs to consider the possibility of making the ordinance apply to all restaurants and bars, Davis said.

"Smoking is an unhealthy behavior and why should other people be exposed to it?" Davis said. "We don't allow people to be exposed to asbestos."

Davis said the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association should take a responsible position.

"The association has accepted grants from the tobacco industry and they are doing the industry's dirty work," he said.

In a prepared statement, association President and CEO Dennis Carpenter said, "At the current time, KRHA does support freedom of choice for business owners, employees and customers to choose the smoking environment in which they desire to operate, work and frequent.

"KRHA opposes smoking bans or other smoking restrictions which are imposed on hotels, motels, restaurants, clubs, bars and taverns by federal, state or local government which do not recognize these rights and which put businesses at an unfair advantage in comparison with businesses in neighboring cities, counties and or states."

Following the release of the surgeon general's report, however, the association sent a survey members to make sure they still want to take this position, said Jennifer Willits, communications/marketing director.

"We want to revisit and make sure the association members are still feeling the same at this time," Willits said. "Hopefully, we will have a majority of the surveys in by the end of next week."

Davis cites a Zagat survey of more than 115,000 people for the 2006 America's Top Restaurants guide found 89 percent of Americans prefer smoke-free restaurants, bars and clubs.

Overland Park physician Sarah Hicks said she has observed the effects of secondhand smoke on children whose parents smoke.

The children are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma, the surgeon general's report said.

The Mid-America Regional Council has a model plan for cities to follow in developing a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars. The Kansas City, Mo. Health Commission worked with cities on both sides of the state line in writing the plan.

MARC's Environmental Policy Committee recommended the plan but the MARC board stopped short of passage, Development Director Marlene Nagle said.

"Communities are in different places in terms of their place on the issue and the board decided not to encourage all local governments to pass it," Nagle said. "We felt it was not our place to dictate, but we encourage them if they are considering using the model," Nagle said.

http://hot-cigs.com/news/Jul-11-2006/Smoking.979.html

The surgeon general declared the debate over last week on whether secondhand smoke kills people, but the local debate on whether to ban smoking in restaurants and other public places continues. "Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard at any level," Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in a 700-page report.

Throughout Johnson County, Carmona's report appears to have had an impact on city leaders, and the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, the biggest lobbyist against smoking bans, is surveying members about their views following the report.

Olathe

Olathe City Council is closest in the county to acting on a smoke-free ordinance. The council voted 5-2 last week to create a task force, charged with looking at details of the ordinance, Mayor Michael Copeland said.

The task force is expected to present results by Sept. 1. The council will make a decision then, Copeland said Monday.

"Obviously, the report has very, very compelling information that deserves attention," he said. "I'm hopeful that information will be considered when the council makes its decision in September."

Copeland said he supports smoking restrictions, though the city would not be liable if a lawsuit is filed in connection with hazards of a public smoking environment.

Councilman John Bacon said, "The only thing that surprised everybody about the new report was that it was just a little stronger emphasis than what was heard in the past. It was a little more forceful. I don't know that it changes a whole lot.

"We all knew (secondhand smoke) was harmful. I still think the task force is a good idea. Several council members were not ready to move forward with an ordinance. We thought a community group would be helpful to see how the ordinance would affect people.

Bacon said he does not believe the city should take people's rights away without studying the necessity.

"A lot of people testified that we would be taking people's rights away," he said.

Bacon said businesses, not the city, would have to cope with potential lawsuits arising from secondhand smoke.

"It's an employer's responsibility to provide a healthy environment and that's where the liability would stop," he said.

Overland Park

The Overland Park City Council has discussed smoking bans several times over the past few months, Councilman Terry Goodman said.

"With the surgeon general's report, it is going to be something we have to discuss sooner than later," Goodman said. "I have no idea what the outcome might be."

Goodman said he asked John Thompson, Community Development Committee chairman, about putting the smoking ban discussion back on the agenda.

"I've not had an opportunity to read the (surgeon general's) report, other than newscasts," Goodman said. "My feeling all along has been that I would like to see Overland Park move toward a ban. The report added to the importance of moving in that direction. I'm hopeful our city might provide some leadership in this area."

Goodman said he came away from the last discussion thinking most council members rejected a ban on smoking in public establishments.

"That was one of the reasons I did not push it at the time. I felt it would be a setback that was best avoided," Goodman said. "Perhaps opinions on our council are evolving and as we move ahead this may receive more favorable consideration."

Thompson said the Carmona offered "a significant report and probably will have repercussions."

The committee met last night and is expected to put the issue on a future agenda, Thompson said.

"This is an ongoing issue and I don't think it's been put to rest. Overland Park is looking at this issue the same as other municipalities are and is evaluating the city's current position.

The city has been discussing the issue for several years and the committee has had several presentations, allowing public discussion of a change, Thompson said.

The biggest concern has come from the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, with regard to any economic impact on restaurants and bars if there is not a countywide ban, Thompson said.

The association reported there would be an economic impact if Overland Park enacts a much more stringent code than surrounding cities have. Overland Park is surrounding by Leawood, Lenexa, Olathe, Prairie Village and Shawnee.

The KRHA Website lists R.J. Reynolds and Altria Group, two of the biggest cigarette manufacturers, among sponsors.

The association has lobbied the Kansas Legislature and has spoken at some Olathe City Council meetings against a smoking ban.

"The primary argument is concern for the business community and would our restaurants and bars be placed at a competitive disadvantage and run risks of losing a significant portion of business to adjacent business that did not have a ban," Goodman said.

Results of a countywide survey headed by County Commissioner Delores Furtado showed 80 percent of people eating out chose a non-smoking area and more than half of smokers chose to go to the non-smoking areas. The Johnson County Social Behavior Survey, conducted in the spring, received 1,393 responses from 2,400 surveys.

"There are probably studies on both sides," Goodman said. "Some indicate businesses would suffer; other studies indicate business would improve. I come down on the side of the ledger that business may improve."

Leawood

Leawood city staff is drafting a smoking ordinance and the city plans to conduct hearings over the next two months, City Administrator Scott Lambers said.

"The ordinance has several moving parts," Lambers said.

With 1.9 percent of the county population, the city must be careful to coordinate with border cities, he said.

"I have no doubt that more stringent restrictions on smoking in public places are coming," Lambers said. "I hope we will be able to do it in cooperation with other cities."

Lambers said he favors a smoking ban but would like to see the entire metropolitan area participate.

"It can do nothing but help raise awareness of the effects of smoking on health," he said.

Lambers said the surgeon general's report presents "a very powerful case against smoking and has acted as a catalyst for the cities to take up the issue." He said he hopes neighboring cities cooperate.

"In a perfect world, smoking would be illegal. In a less-than-perfect world, it would be banned in public places," said Lambers, whose father died after a two-pack-a-day habit and whose wife is allergic to smoke.

Kevin Jeffries, president and CEO of the Leawood Chamber of Commerce, said, "We are not very supportive of a Leawood-only ban. It would probably disproportionately damage our members."

The Leawood Chamber would support a metrowide ban, Jeffries said.

"That would be a level playing field for all restaurants in the Kansas City metropolitan area," he said.

Kansas City, Mo., has passed a smoke-free ordinance to take effect only when 85 percent of area cities pass similar ordinances. Jeffries said he hopes city leaders "go back to the drawing board."

Jeffries would not speculate on whether a smoke-free ordinance would be good for customers and employees.

"I am not in a position to say. I'm not a scientist," Jeffries said.

The surgeon general's report will add to documentation for the Leawood City Council later this month. The information will include all no-smoking ordinances in Kansas, Jeffries said.

"I hope the city can learn from the city of Olathe, which is moving faster than Leawood," he said. "We can learn from them and go through a similar process."

OTHER CITIES

Shawnee City Council has discussed the issue but is taking a "wait and see" position as other cities deal with the controversial issue of smoke-free establishments.

Former Countryside Mayor Ken Davis, whose community now merged with Mission, said the surgeon general's report "should bolster the need to have the matter taken seriously in the community."

Davis sat on the Mission task force when the city council voted 4-3 against an ordinance to ban smoking restaurants and bars.

"The economic impact on the food industry is the bottom line," Davis said. "They think it would affect business but it has not had a negative effect on business elsewhere. And not a single Mission resident spoke against the ordinance."

Davis had lung cancer surgery in 2002.

"It's time (for cities) to step up to the plate, do the right thing and stop stalling," Davis said. "A number of states and cities have adopted no smoking policies, including Roeland Park, Fairway and Mission Woods."

Prairie Village has passed an ordinance which would take effect if surrounding cities also adopt smoke-free laws. But Davis said the city is "delegating its authority to surrounding cities."

Overland Park has an ordinance but exempts restaurants and bars existing prior to the enactment March 1, 2000. The city needs to consider the possibility of making the ordinance apply to all restaurants and bars, Davis said.

"Smoking is an unhealthy behavior and why should other people be exposed to it?" Davis said. "We don't allow people to be exposed to asbestos."

Davis said the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association should take a responsible position.

"The association has accepted grants from the tobacco industry and they are doing the industry's dirty work," he said.

In a prepared statement, association President and CEO Dennis Carpenter said, "At the current time, KRHA does support freedom of choice for business owners, employees and customers to choose the smoking environment in which they desire to operate, work and frequent.

"KRHA opposes smoking bans or other smoking restrictions which are imposed on hotels, motels, restaurants, clubs, bars and taverns by federal, state or local government which do not recognize these rights and which put businesses at an unfair advantage in comparison with businesses in neighboring cities, counties and or states."

Following the release of the surgeon general's report, however, the association sent a survey members to make sure they still want to take this position, said Jennifer Willits, communications/marketing director.

"We want to revisit and make sure the association members are still feeling the same at this time," Willits said. "Hopefully, we will have a majority of the surveys in by the end of next week."

Davis cites a Zagat survey of more than 115,000 people for the 2006 America's Top Restaurants guide found 89 percent of Americans prefer smoke-free restaurants, bars and clubs.

Overland Park physician Sarah Hicks said she has observed the effects of secondhand smoke on children whose parents smoke.

The children are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma, the surgeon general's report said.

The Mid-America Regional Council has a model plan for cities to follow in developing a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars. The Kansas City, Mo. Health Commission worked with cities on both sides of the state line in writing the plan.

MARC's Environmental Policy Committee recommended the plan but the MARC board stopped short of passage, Development Director Marlene Nagle said.

"Communities are in different places in terms of their place on the issue and the board decided not to encourage all local governments to pass it," Nagle said. "We felt it was not our place to dictate, but we encourage them if they are considering using the model," Nagle said.

http://hot-cigs.com/news/Jul-11-2006/Smoking.979.html

The surgeon general declared the debate over last week on whether secondhand smoke kills people, but the local debate on whether to ban smoking in restaurants and other public places continues. "Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard at any level," Surgeon General Richard Carmona said in a 700-page report.

Throughout Johnson County, Carmona's report appears to have had an impact on city leaders, and the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, the biggest lobbyist against smoking bans, is surveying members about their views following the report.

Olathe

Olathe City Council is closest in the county to acting on a smoke-free ordinance. The council voted 5-2 last week to create a task force, charged with looking at details of the ordinance, Mayor Michael Copeland said.

The task force is expected to present results by Sept. 1. The council will make a decision then, Copeland said Monday.

"Obviously, the report has very, very compelling information that deserves attention," he said. "I'm hopeful that information will be considered when the council makes its decision in September."

Copeland said he supports smoking restrictions, though the city would not be liable if a lawsuit is filed in connection with hazards of a public smoking environment.

Councilman John Bacon said, "The only thing that surprised everybody about the new report was that it was just a little stronger emphasis than what was heard in the past. It was a little more forceful. I don't know that it changes a whole lot.

"We all knew (secondhand smoke) was harmful. I still think the task force is a good idea. Several council members were not ready to move forward with an ordinance. We thought a community group would be helpful to see how the ordinance would affect people.

Bacon said he does not believe the city should take people's rights away without studying the necessity.

"A lot of people testified that we would be taking people's rights away," he said.

Bacon said businesses, not the city, would have to cope with potential lawsuits arising from secondhand smoke.

"It's an employer's responsibility to provide a healthy environment and that's where the liability would stop," he said.

Overland Park

The Overland Park City Council has discussed smoking bans several times over the past few months, Councilman Terry Goodman said.

"With the surgeon general's report, it is going to be something we have to discuss sooner than later," Goodman said. "I have no idea what the outcome might be."

Goodman said he asked John Thompson, Community Development Committee chairman, about putting the smoking ban discussion back on the agenda.

"I've not had an opportunity to read the (surgeon general's) report, other than newscasts," Goodman said. "My feeling all along has been that I would like to see Overland Park move toward a ban. The report added to the importance of moving in that direction. I'm hopeful our city might provide some leadership in this area."

Goodman said he came away from the last discussion thinking most council members rejected a ban on smoking in public establishments.

"That was one of the reasons I did not push it at the time. I felt it would be a setback that was best avoided," Goodman said. "Perhaps opinions on our council are evolving and as we move ahead this may receive more favorable consideration."

Thompson said the Carmona offered "a significant report and probably will have repercussions."

The committee met last night and is expected to put the issue on a future agenda, Thompson said.

"This is an ongoing issue and I don't think it's been put to rest. Overland Park is looking at this issue the same as other municipalities are and is evaluating the city's current position.

The city has been discussing the issue for several years and the committee has had several presentations, allowing public discussion of a change, Thompson said.

The biggest concern has come from the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, with regard to any economic impact on restaurants and bars if there is not a countywide ban, Thompson said.

The association reported there would be an economic impact if Overland Park enacts a much more stringent code than surrounding cities have. Overland Park is surrounding by Leawood, Lenexa, Olathe, Prairie Village and Shawnee.

The KRHA Website lists R.J. Reynolds and Altria Group, two of the biggest cigarette manufacturers, among sponsors.

The association has lobbied the Kansas Legislature and has spoken at some Olathe City Council meetings against a smoking ban.

"The primary argument is concern for the business community and would our restaurants and bars be placed at a competitive disadvantage and run risks of losing a significant portion of business to adjacent business that did not have a ban," Goodman said.

Results of a countywide survey headed by County Commissioner Delores Furtado showed 80 percent of people eating out chose a non-smoking area and more than half of smokers chose to go to the non-smoking areas. The Johnson County Social Behavior Survey, conducted in the spring, received 1,393 responses from 2,400 surveys.

"There are probably studies on both sides," Goodman said. "Some indicate businesses would suffer; other studies indicate business would improve. I come down on the side of the ledger that business may improve."

Leawood

Leawood city staff is drafting a smoking ordinance and the city plans to conduct hearings over the next two months, City Administrator Scott Lambers said.

"The ordinance has several moving parts," Lambers said.

With 1.9 percent of the county population, the city must be careful to coordinate with border cities, he said.

"I have no doubt that more stringent restrictions on smoking in public places are coming," Lambers said. "I hope we will be able to do it in cooperation with other cities."

Lambers said he favors a smoking ban but would like to see the entire metropolitan area participate.

"It can do nothing but help raise awareness of the effects of smoking on health," he said.

Lambers said the surgeon general's report presents "a very powerful case against smoking and has acted as a catalyst for the cities to take up the issue." He said he hopes neighboring cities cooperate.

"In a perfect world, smoking would be illegal. In a less-than-perfect world, it would be banned in public places," said Lambers, whose father died after a two-pack-a-day habit and whose wife is allergic to smoke.

Kevin Jeffries, president and CEO of the Leawood Chamber of Commerce, said, "We are not very supportive of a Leawood-only ban. It would probably disproportionately damage our members."

The Leawood Chamber would support a metrowide ban, Jeffries said.

"That would be a level playing field for all restaurants in the Kansas City metropolitan area," he said.

Kansas City, Mo., has passed a smoke-free ordinance to take effect only when 85 percent of area cities pass similar ordinances. Jeffries said he hopes city leaders "go back to the drawing board."

Jeffries would not speculate on whether a smoke-free ordinance would be good for customers and employees.

"I am not in a position to say. I'm not a scientist," Jeffries said.

The surgeon general's report will add to documentation for the Leawood City Council later this month. The information will include all no-smoking ordinances in Kansas, Jeffries said.

"I hope the city can learn from the city of Olathe, which is moving faster than Leawood," he said. "We can learn from them and go through a similar process."

OTHER CITIES

Shawnee City Council has discussed the issue but is taking a "wait and see" position as other cities deal with the controversial issue of smoke-free establishments.

Former Countryside Mayor Ken Davis, whose community now merged with Mission, said the surgeon general's report "should bolster the need to have the matter taken seriously in the community."

Davis sat on the Mission task force when the city council voted 4-3 against an ordinance to ban smoking restaurants and bars.

"The economic impact on the food industry is the bottom line," Davis said. "They think it would affect business but it has not had a negative effect on business elsewhere. And not a single Mission resident spoke against the ordinance."

Davis had lung cancer surgery in 2002.

"It's time (for cities) to step up to the plate, do the right thing and stop stalling," Davis said. "A number of states and cities have adopted no smoking policies, including Roeland Park, Fairway and Mission Woods."

Prairie Village has passed an ordinance which would take effect if surrounding cities also adopt smoke-free laws. But Davis said the city is "delegating its authority to surrounding cities."

Overland Park has an ordinance but exempts restaurants and bars existing prior to the enactment March 1, 2000. The city needs to consider the possibility of making the ordinance apply to all restaurants and bars, Davis said.

"Smoking is an unhealthy behavior and why should other people be exposed to it?" Davis said. "We don't allow people to be exposed to asbestos."

Davis said the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association should take a responsible position.

"The association has accepted grants from the tobacco industry and they are doing the industry's dirty work," he said.

In a prepared statement, association President and CEO Dennis Carpenter said, "At the current time, KRHA does support freedom of choice for business owners, employees and customers to choose the smoking environment in which they desire to operate, work and frequent.

"KRHA opposes smoking bans or other smoking restrictions which are imposed on hotels, motels, restaurants, clubs, bars and taverns by federal, state or local government which do not recognize these rights and which put businesses at an unfair advantage in comparison with businesses in neighboring cities, counties and or states."

Following the release of the surgeon general's report, however, the association sent a survey members to make sure they still want to take this position, said Jennifer Willits, communications/marketing director.

"We want to revisit and make sure the association members are still feeling the same at this time," Willits said. "Hopefully, we will have a majority of the surveys in by the end of next week."

Davis cites a Zagat survey of more than 115,000 people for the 2006 America's Top Restaurants guide found 89 percent of Americans prefer smoke-free restaurants, bars and clubs.

Overland Park physician Sarah Hicks said she has observed the effects of secondhand smoke on children whose parents smoke.

The children are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems and more severe asthma, the surgeon general's report said.

The Mid-America Regional Council has a model plan for cities to follow in developing a smoke-free environment in restaurants and bars. The Kansas City, Mo. Health Commission worked with cities on both sides of the state line in writing the plan.

MARC's Environmental Policy Committee recommended the plan but the MARC board stopped short of passage, Development Director Marlene Nagle said.

"Communities are in different places in terms of their place on the issue and the board decided not to encourage all local governments to pass it," Nagle said. "We felt it was not our place to dictate, but we encourage them if they are considering using the model," Nagle said.

http://www.miami.com

The Florida Supreme Court decision to void a $145 billion tobacco class-action settlement created billions of dollars in market value for cigarette makers -- who saw their stocks soar after the ruling was announced.

Furthermore, experts said the Florida case of Engle vs. Liggett Group reflects an enduring truth: Nearly four centuries after the American tobacco industry was founded by colonists, it remains immensely profitable and financially steadfast.

''They sell a highly addictive product and they generate all this cash,'' said Ivan Feinseth, managing director of Matrix Investment Research in New York, who maintains a ''strong buy'' rating on Altria, the corporate parent of Philip Morris. ``As long as their clients stay alive, they're good clients.''

Altria saw its shares rise $4.23, or 5.7 percent, after Thursday's court decision. With just more than two billion shares outstanding, that represents an increase of $8.8 billion in market value.

That helped propel the Dow Jones industrial average, of which Altria is a component, to an increase of 73.54 points, to close at 11,225.30.

Reynolds American, the second-largest cigarette producer, saw its stock rise $4.59 per share, for a one-day gain of $677 million in market value.

Analysts said the rise was partly because tobacco companies have been depressed while court cases drag on.

''The companies trade with this big litigation burden, that's pretty clear,'' Feinseth said.

Furthermore, the court decision essentially allows Altria to split its Philip Morris tobacco operations from its Kraft Foods division, benefiting shareholders.

''The Engle case represented one of the major hurdles in Altria Group's plan to restructure its domestic and international tobacco and packaged foods businesses,'' said Ray Mathis, an analyst for Standard & Poor's, in a report on Businesseweek.com.

He, too, put a ''strong buy'' recommendation on the shares, predicting they may now rise to $90 by year's end, a 15 percent increase from Thursday's close.

While the tobacco industry is often in the headlines over its costly litigation battles, the legal costs haven't seriously diminished its profitability.

Last year, for instance, Altria earned $10 billion on sales of roughly $100 billion.

A key component: soaring international sales.

Last year, Philip Morris International saw its operating income climb nearly 20 percent to $7.8 billion, the company said in a global tobacco conference last week.

''While there will inevitably be bumps along the road, with nearly 85 percent of the world's adult smokers outside the U.S.A. that we will seek to persuade to switch to our products, I believe that [Philip Morris International] has great potential to continue to expand volume, share and profitability going forward,'' Andre Calantzopoulos, president of Philip Morris International, said at the conference in London.

http://www.miami.com

The Florida Supreme Court decision to void a $145 billion tobacco class-action settlement created billions of dollars in market value for cigarette makers -- who saw their stocks soar after the ruling was announced.

Furthermore, experts said the Florida case of Engle vs. Liggett Group reflects an enduring truth: Nearly four centuries after the American tobacco industry was founded by colonists, it remains immensely profitable and financially steadfast.

''They sell a highly addictive product and they generate all this cash,'' said Ivan Feinseth, managing director of Matrix Investment Research in New York, who maintains a ''strong buy'' rating on Altria, the corporate parent of Philip Morris. ``As long as their clients stay alive, they're good clients.''

Altria saw its shares rise $4.23, or 5.7 percent, after Thursday's court decision. With just more than two billion shares outstanding, that represents an increase of $8.8 billion in market value.

That helped propel the Dow Jones industrial average, of which Altria is a component, to an increase of 73.54 points, to close at 11,225.30.

Reynolds American, the second-largest cigarette producer, saw its stock rise $4.59 per share, for a one-day gain of $677 million in market value.

Analysts said the rise was partly because tobacco companies have been depressed while court cases drag on.

''The companies trade with this big litigation burden, that's pretty clear,'' Feinseth said.

Furthermore, the court decision essentially allows Altria to split its Philip Morris tobacco operations from its Kraft Foods division, benefiting shareholders.

''The Engle case represented one of the major hurdles in Altria Group's plan to restructure its domestic and international tobacco and packaged foods businesses,'' said Ray Mathis, an analyst for Standard & Poor's, in a report on Businesseweek.com.

He, too, put a ''strong buy'' recommendation on the shares, predicting they may now rise to $90 by year's end, a 15 percent increase from Thursday's close.

While the tobacco industry is often in the headlines over its costly litigation battles, the legal costs haven't seriously diminished its profitability.

Last year, for instance, Altria earned $10 billion on sales of roughly $100 billion.

A key component: soaring international sales.

Last year, Philip Morris International saw its operating income climb nearly 20 percent to $7.8 billion, the company said in a global tobacco conference last week.

''While there will inevitably be bumps along the road, with nearly 85 percent of the world's adult smokers outside the U.S.A. that we will seek to persuade to switch to our products, I believe that [Philip Morris International] has great potential to continue to expand volume, share and profitability going forward,'' Andre Calantzopoulos, president of Philip Morris International, said at the conference in London.

http://www.miami.com

The Florida Supreme Court decision to void a $145 billion tobacco class-action settlement created billions of dollars in market value for cigarette makers -- who saw their stocks soar after the ruling was announced.

Furthermore, experts said the Florida case of Engle vs. Liggett Group reflects an enduring truth: Nearly four centuries after the American tobacco industry was founded by colonists, it remains immensely profitable and financially steadfast.

''They sell a highly addictive product and they generate all this cash,'' said Ivan Feinseth, managing director of Matrix Investment Research in New York, who maintains a ''strong buy'' rating on Altria, the corporate parent of Philip Morris. ``As long as their clients stay alive, they're good clients.''

Altria saw its shares rise $4.23, or 5.7 percent, after Thursday's court decision. With just more than two billion shares outstanding, that represents an increase of $8.8 billion in market value.

That helped propel the Dow Jones industrial average, of which Altria is a component, to an increase of 73.54 points, to close at 11,225.30.

Reynolds American, the second-largest cigarette producer, saw its stock rise $4.59 per share, for a one-day gain of $677 million in market value.

Analysts said the rise was partly because tobacco companies have been depressed while court cases drag on.

''The companies trade with this big litigation burden, that's pretty clear,'' Feinseth said.

Furthermore, the court decision essentially allows Altria to split its Philip Morris tobacco operations from its Kraft Foods division, benefiting shareholders.

''The Engle case represented one of the major hurdles in Altria Group's plan to restructure its domestic and international tobacco and packaged foods businesses,'' said Ray Mathis, an analyst for Standard & Poor's, in a report on Businesseweek.com.

He, too, put a ''strong buy'' recommendation on the shares, predicting they may now rise to $90 by year's end, a 15 percent increase from Thursday's close.

While the tobacco industry is often in the headlines over its costly litigation battles, the legal costs haven't seriously diminished its profitability.

Last year, for instance, Altria earned $10 billion on sales of roughly $100 billion.

A key component: soaring international sales.

Last year, Philip Morris International saw its operating income climb nearly 20 percent to $7.8 billion, the company said in a global tobacco conference last week.

''While there will inevitably be bumps along the road, with nearly 85 percent of the world's adult smokers outside the U.S.A. that we will seek to persuade to switch to our products, I believe that [Philip Morris International] has great potential to continue to expand volume, share and profitability going forward,'' Andre Calantzopoulos, president of Philip Morris International, said at the conference in London.

http://news.independent.co.uk

Shopkeepers who repeatedly sell cigarettes to children will be banned from stocking tobacco under new proposals to be unveiled tomorrow.

Tougher penalties on retailers are part of efforts to reduce the number of youngsters smoking and includes raising the minimum legal age for buying cigarettes. Ministers are about to begin consulting on whether to increase the age from 16 to 18, which would bring it into line with buying alcohol.

Controversially, however, ministers are also considering a compromise option that would see the minimum raised to 17.

A smoker who begins at 15 is three times more likely to die from cancer than one who takes their first drag in their mid-20s. Yet almost one in 10 children aged between 11 and 15 are already smoking regularly. Among 15-year-olds the rate reaches 21 per cent.

The ease with which youngsters can buy cigarettes is revealed in an official survey that found less than a quarter found it difficult: 70 per cent buy from small shops and corner shops.

Currently the maximum fine for retailers found selling tobacco to under-age customers is £3,500, but even this is rarely enforced. There were only 100 prosecutions last year.

Now shopkeepers face the threat of being banned from selling cigarettes at all if they are found to have repeatedly sold to under-age customers.

Trading standards officers, who are responsible for policing the law, are backing the tougher regime and increased minimum age. They will be dismayed, however, if a 17-year-old minimum is agreed.

Ian Willmore, of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) said: "The only logical move is to increase it to 18 in line with alcohol to help everybody to enforce it properly."

Caroline Flint, the health minister, said: "The proposals demonstrate our determination to reduce the number of older children and young teenagers from smoking." The measure would particularly help poorer youngsters who are more likely to start smoking by making it more difficult for them to get hold of cigarettes, she said.

Pressure to bring the UK into line with other EU countries as well as the US, Canada and Australia has grown in recent years. Those who want the minimum age raised to 18 point out that the current minimum of 16 was agreed in 1908. About a quarter of 16- 17-year-olds smoke regularly - something worth an estimated £35m a year to the tobacco industry.

But campaigners believe raising the age will only have a moderate effect on smoking rates which is why the move is not opposed by the tobacco industry.

"Children smoke because adults smoke. In fact sticking an '18 and over' label on packets will make them more desirable than ever to some teenagers," said Mr Willmore.

The scepticism is borne out by international studies that have found that raising the minimum age has had little effect on reducing smoking rates.

The power of tobacco companies to plug their products has been greatly reduced since the introduction of worldwide bans on overt advertising of cigarettes. Since December 2004, all cigarette advertising in the UK has been banned apart from small images of products on vending machines, and tomorrow the House of Lords will vote on measures to restrict smoking in public places.

The measure - first revealed by this newspaper - was described by one health official as a "quick win" at a time when Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Health, was under fire over the ban on smoking in public places.

In response, tobacco companies have become more inventive in finding ways of raising awareness and marketing their products and also sponsoring "ethical" research. This paper has already revealed how the tobacco giant Philip Morris was backing medical studies into the use of vitamin and mineral supplements to boost fertility levels.

The facts: Young people and cigarettes

1 in 10 girls between 11 and 15 years old smokes

55% can't go a day without one

114,000 smokers die each year as a result of their habit

80% take up the habit as teenagers

1 in 5 needs a cigarette before breakfast

450 children start smoking every day

1 in 6 teenage boys smoke

50% of under-age smokers buy cigarettes themselves

52 number of cigarettes an average teenage smoker gets through in a week

http://www.cbsnews.com

Smoking low-tar and low-nicotine — or "light" — cigarettes may actually make it harder for smokers to kick the habit.

A new study shows that people who smoke light cigarettes are more than 50 percent less likely to quit smoking than those who smoke regular cigarettes.

"Even though smokers may hope to reduce their health risks by smoking lights, the results suggest they are doing just the opposite because they are significantly reducing their chances of quitting. Moreover, as they get older their chances of quitting become more and more diminished," says researcher Hilary D. Tindle, M.D., MPH, assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, in a news release. Tindle conducted the research while at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston.

'Light' Cigarettes May Mislead Smokers

In the study, published in the American Journal of Public Health, researchers analyzed the results of a survey of more than 12,000 current and former smokers conducted in 2000 in the U.S.

More than a third said they had used light cigarettes in an attempt to reduce the health risks associated with cigarette smoking, which include an increased risk of heart disease and lung cancer. Most of the light cigarette smokers were female, highly educated, and white.

The study also showed that smokers who had used light cigarettes were 54 percent less likely to have successfully quit smoking than those who had never smoked light cigarettes.

This effect increased with increasing age, and adults aged 65 and over who had smoked light cigarettes to reduce health risks were 76 percent less likely to quit than those who smoked only regular cigarettes.

Researchers say the findings are particularly disturbing because the more than 30 million Americans who smoked light cigarettes may be under the false impression that it reduces their health risk; they are actually increasing their health risks by continuing to smoke rather than quitting.

"Because smoking is such a major cause of death and disability in this country and worldwide, we believe that it is critical to give smokers accurate information on the potentially detrimental effects of the use of lights to reduce health risks and the potential impact on subsequent smoking cessation," says Tindle.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2135345&page=1

June 29, 2006 — Smoking "light" cigarettes was just another way Mim Long rationalized that she was not addicted to smoking, along with an arbitrary rule of not smoking before 10 a.m.

But, alas, the Los Angeles actress now admits light cigarettes are just as addictive as their stronger counterparts.

"We're addicts. We'll talk ourselves into anything to keep doing what we want to do," said Long, a smoker for 15 years who quit four years ago.

Light cigarettes are believed to be healthier and easier to quit, but a new study of smokers' habits revealed surprising findings. Researchers asked more than 12,000 former and current smokers about their smoking habits, and they found that people who had smoked light cigarettes were 54 percent less likely to be among the quitters than smokers who'd never smoked light cigarettes.

The results, reported today in the American Journal of Public Health, do not answer exactly why they were less likely to quit but suggest that the "light" smokers were less motivated to stop smoking because they believed that the cigarettes were healthier, according to Dr. Hilary Tindle, author of the study and an assistant professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.

"There's so much confusion about cigarettes, the label speaks for itself. 'Light' is misinterpreted as being healthier," Tindle said.

Studies have shown that smoking light cigarettes offers no health benefits, but this is the first study to suggest how their use may influence behavior. In the early '80s, many doctors even recommended light cigarettes to their patients interested in quitting.

"There was the question: Does this help people make a quit attempt or are they providing an out?" said Dr. Ken Perkins, a psychiatry and epidemiology professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

According to Tindle, "lights" first came onto the market in the 1960s to reassure smokers and perhaps target those who were thinking of quitting.

However, the terms "light" or "slim" or "low tar" are misnomers — light cigarettes are wrapped in a different, more diffuse paper than regular cigarettes, but their levels of nicotine and tar are similar to those of regular cigarettes.

They received the "light" label based on testing by robotlike smoking machines, according to Perkins.

"People don't smoke like a machine," said Perkins. In fact, they will cover up the holes with their fingers, inhale more deeply or smoke more cigarettes to get the same amount of nicotine in their blood, he said.

According to Perkins, Quest cigarettes are the only true low-nicotine brand. Quest uses genetically modified tobacco that has lower levels of nicotine.

While the misbelief persists that "lights" are healthier, the cigarette industry does not claim they are healthier. For example, the Philip Morris Web site states: "PM USA does not imply in our marketing, and smokers should not assume that lower-yielding brands are safe or safer than full-flavor brands."

Researchers believe, however, that this message has not filtered out to the public.

"I am convinced the average smoker still thinks they are safe," Perkins said.

Meanwhile, Long, the actress, finally overcame her addiction. After completing the American Lung Association's Freedom From Smoking program, she has been smoke-free for the past four years.

"There's no easy fix. You really have to change you're lifestyle"

http://www.hindustantimes.com

People who smoke the so-called light cigarettes in the belief it cuts their risk of smoking-related diseases like cancer are in fact at equal risk, says a new study.

The only way to reduce smoking-related health risks is to quit smoking altogether because all cigarettes are deadly, says the study.

Hilary Tindle and other researchers at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine studied more than 12,000 smokers, mostly women, and found that people who smoke light cigarettes reduce their chances of quitting significantly, reported science portal EurekAlert.

They were about 50 percent less likely to quit than other cigarette smokers, the study said.

Some people prefer light cigarettes because of the low-tar and low-nicotine content, which they mistakenly believe is safer. People who smoke light cigarettes are likely to inhale the same amount of hazardous chemicals because they inhale deeper to get enough smoke for the satisfactory nicotine "hit", the National Cancer Institute says.

Therefore, they remain at high risk for developing smoking-related cancers and other diseases.

"It's not surprising that even though logically people know that all smoking is harmful, the power of marketing is such that many people would be conned into thinking the so-called lower tar or light brands are less dangerous," the researchers said.

http://hot-cigs.com/news/Jul-03-2006/Light-Cigarettes-Are-Just-As-Bad.572.html

Study proves that light cigarettes are just as bad for you as regular ones

A new study published in the American Journal of Public Health, suggests that for somebody smoking a lighter brand of cigarettes, the chances of that person quitting altogether are just as bad as they would be if they smoked a stronger brand.

According to lead author Dr. Hilary A. Tindle of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, many smokers actually view smoking a light brand of cigarette as an alternative to quitting the habit altogether. People have the view that light cigarettes pose fewer health risks, when in actual fact, light cigarettes have been prooven to be just as bad for you as regular cigarettes.

There is a common view amongst experts, that people who smoke light cigarettes, do so to justify smoking more in order to get their nicotine fix, and although appear to contain fewer toxic chemicals, are just as bad due to the fact that people simply inhale harder, and smoke more often.

The study was done featuring 12000 current and former smokers, 1 third of whom stated that they had tried smoking light cigarettes in an attempt to quit; however, a telling statistic showed that 54% of "light cigarette" smokers were less likely to quit than smokers who never smoked light cigarettes.

"Because smoking is such a major cause of death and disability in this country and worldwide, we believe that it is critical to give smokers accurate information on the potentially detrimental effects of the use of lights to reduce health risks and the potential impact on subsequent smoking cessation," says Tindle.

It is estimated that 30 million smokers in the US, smoke a brand of light cigarette

http://www2.townonline.com

State Rep. Paul J. Donato, D-Medford, and state Rep. Christopher G. Fallon, D-Malden, announced that the House of Representatives has unanimously passed legislation requiring tobacco companies to produce and sell only fire-safe cigarettes in Massachusetts.

Cigarette-ignited fires are the leading cause of home fire deaths in Massachusetts and result in thousands of devastating burn and lung injuries as well as millions of dollars in property damages every year. Fire-safe cigarettes, or self-extinguishing cigarettes, are made with special paper containing "speed bumps" that slow down and extinguish a cigarette's burn if the smoker is not actively puffing on it. They are less likely to start fires than regular cigarettes.

"This long-awaited legislation will reduce the instances of fires, injuries and deaths associated with unattended cigarettes each year," said Fallon. "Cigarette fires have been an ongoing, significant public safety threat. In an effort to protect the commonwealth's smokers and their loved ones, this new legislation promises to greatly reduce the risk and occurrence of cigarette fires by requiring the sale of only self-extinguishing cigarettes."

"Too many fires have been started by unattended cigarettes and too many lives have been lost as a result," said Donato. "Self-extinguishing cigarettes will help reduce the risk of fire and injury for smokers, their families, their neighbors and our local firefighters. This legislation proposes a long overdue solution to a critical public safety threat."

Under the bill, all cigarettes sold or offered in Massachusetts must be tested to meet the American Society of Testing and Materials standard for cigarette ignition propensity. Studies have shown that cigarettes meeting this performance standard are 90 percent more likely to self-extinguish than conventional cigarettes. New York, California, Vermont, Illinois and New Hampshire have passed similar measures.

http://www.croydonguardian.co.uk

A New Addington newsagent has criticised "irresponsible" adults who are buying cigarettes for underage children.

Children too young to be sold cigarettes the branch of Martin's newsagents wait outside the Headley Drive shop for a willing adult to go in buy tobacco from them, shop staff claim.

The trend has resulted in hoards of youngsters hanging around the store which, the newsagent said, also intimidates other customers.

Staff cannot refuse to sell cigarettes to adults but hope they will stop buying them for children if they realise that they are causing a problem by doing so.

Shop supervisor Margaret Spillaine said: "We're getting so sick of refusing to sell to children and then adults coming in and buying cigarettes for them. It's irresponsible.

"If we sell cigarettes to children we get prosecuted. The adults who buy for the kids outside don't get prosecuted.

"We're trying to send out the message that we're not selling to underage kids but all that is being undone.

"All they've got to do is hang around outside and wait for a willing adult. This is very intimidating for our other customers, particularly the elderly ones."

Councillor Brenda Kirby said: "I'm pleased to see the newsagent is taking such a proactive stance. I'm a smoker, but I don't agree with underage children being able to get cigarettes. It's very irresponsible for adults to then get them for children."

http://www.ny1.com

The Bloomberg administration is cracking down on stores that sell cigarettes to minors and hinting that it may get behind a plan to raise the smoking age. NY1's Michael Scotto filed the following report.

Carolina Grocery on Avenue D in Manhattan is no longer allowed to sell cigarettes; that's because the city revoked the store's license after it was caught selling them to minors. The store was one of 195 shops citywide that saw its tobacco permit taken away as part of a crackdown on underage smoking.

"These businesses were all too wiling to put cigarettes in the hands of our kids. And in doing so they not only broke the law, they opened the door for another child to become a life long smoker," said the mayor.

Over the last two years, city officials conducted 15,000 inspections of the 11,000 stores licensed to sell tobacco. They paid underage teens between the ages of 15 and 17 to go into stores to try to buy cigarettes.

In total, officials found that 84 percent of stores didn't sell to kids under the age of 18. The 16 percent that did either received fines of up to $3,500 or, if they were repeat offenders, had their licenses revoked. The city says these undercover stings are working.

"Compliance has risen by 30 percent points, since this enforcement program began in 1998," said Consumer Affairs Commissioner Jonathon Mintz. "Our goal is as simple as the law we enforce; you just don't sell cigarettes to kids, period."

The Bloomberg administration has been cracking down on smoking since it took office in 2002. It raised the taxes on a pack of cigarettes by more than a dollar.

It's also running graphic ads on television to discourage teens from smoking. The city's health commissioner says fewer kids are now lighting up, currently 1 in 10. But the Administration wants to do more. It's considering a city council bill that would raise the smoking age from 18 to 21.

"It's certainly something that should be looked at," said Commissioner Thomas Frieden. "We need to think about ways to further reduce smoking."

For now, the city plans to continue cracking down on stores that are helping kids carry on a deadly habit. Inspectors are currently on the lookout in all five boroughs.