Cardiff pub latest in plan to act before the ban Welsh brewer and pubco Brains has made another of its pubs smoke-free – its sixth ahead of next April’s ban.
As part of a continued plan to act early prior to the ban, Brains has transformed one of Cardiff’s oldest pubs into a no-smoking venue.
The Old Arcade, in Church Street, has had part of its roof from the rear section removed to create a courtyard area.
It is linked to the back room by state-of-the-art floor-to-ceiling glass doors that can be opened in good weather. In addition, canopies have been erected in the lane which runs alongside the pub to provide further sheltered outdoor space for customers.
Andrew Lynch-Wilson, the Old Arcade’s manager, said: “The pub is a real institution in Cardiff and has been a Brains’ pub since the turn of the last century, so during the refurbishment we made sure that all the improvements kept its original character while providing a smart, contemporary solution for our customers.”
]]>Tinley Park has one. Orland Park does, too. And now Oak Forest plans to start asking local businesses whether the city should do what the other suburbs are doing and implement a city-wide smoking ban.
The city's chamber of commerce plans to mail surveys to about more than 170 businesses to gauge their opinion about a proposed ban, said Tamara Kostecki, the chamber's executive director.
City officials plan to formally discuss the prospects of a smoking ban at a committee meeting Nov. 14.
Ald. Richard Simon (2nd) said few of the business owners he has talked with were supportive of the proposed ban.
"I'm a non-smoker, and I have my personal feelings," Simon said. "But my decision will be based on the opinion of the business community."
Ald. Anthony Chinino (1st) said he already made up his mind.
"I'll vote no," he said. "It's up to the business owners to say they don't want smoking."
Oak Forest Mayor JoAnn Kelly said the city would invite representatives from the American Cancer Society to discuss the health effects of secondhand smoke. She said city officials also would look for guidance in the ordinances Orland Park and Tinley Park approved.
]]>Mr Thierno Diallo the Country Director of Philip Morris International, a Switzerland based cigarette manufacturing company has commended the government of Ghana for its commitment to fight illicit cigarette in the country.
Mr Diallo made the above comment when a memorandum of understanding was signed between Philip Morris International and Custom Excise and Preventive Service (CEPS) in Accra.
He said the company is delighted about the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed to fight illicit trade in cigarette in partnership with CEPS. The MOU would help the two organisations to share information on suspected counterfeit shipments, technical trainings and external communication on counterfeit issues.
Earlier, officials of Custom Excise and Preventive Service destroyed more than 100 million counterfeit cigarette at Kpong near Tema in the Greater Accra Region. The counterfeit cigarettes, bearing Philip Morris International trademarks, were seized in 12 shipping containers in transit at the port of Tema in the second half of 2005.
"I would like to thank the authorities here in Ghana on this milestone destruction of illegal cigarette. This action sends a strong message about Ghana's commitment to address this serious issue. Destruction of seized cigarette is the only way to ensure that these inferior quality product do not find their way back to the legitimate supply chain and into the possession of unsuspecting smokers", Mr Diallo said.
Mr E. N. Doku Commissioner of CEPS who signed the memo on behalf of the commission thanked Philip Morris International for the confidence it has expressed in them. "Our hearts are gladdened by the training facilities Philip Morris has offered to put at our disposal in the MOU."
He said the success of the MOU as a working tool and as a guiding principle cannot be achieved without the requisite skills of our officers assigned duties at our various ports and stati
]]>For non-smokers, being surrounded by cigarette smoke isn't pleasant, but for Mikenna Stephenson, secondhand smoke really does hurt. "I start to choke, and I can't breathe. It's pretty painful," said Stephenson, a junior communications major. She has cystic fibrosis, and it isn't good for her to be around cigarette smoke.
Even though secondhand smoke is bad for her, she doesn't like asking people to not smoke.
"I'm kind of embarrassed to ask people to not smoke around me," Stephenson said. "I don't want to be the bad guy."
She may not have to be the bad guy if Issue 5 passes next week, which would ban smoking in all public places in Ohio.
However, there are groups out that are hoping to fight smoking without the politics.
Mark Mitchell is the tobacco treatment specialist for the Northeast Ohio region of the American Lung Association. He facilitates "Freedom From Smoking," a group clinic smoking cessation program in Independence.
"The program builds up to a 'quit day' preparing the smokers by helping to increase their motivation, confidence and readiness to quit," Mitchell said. "After the 'quit day' the program focuses on relapse prevention and positive lifestyle changes."
Mitchell said it takes people, on average, seven to eight times to quit smoking, because nicotine is so addicting and such a hard habit to break.
The program also uses nicotine replacement drugs. Although they offer prescription pills, Mitchell said most people choose the patches and gum.
"Based on the clinics I've worked at, most people use patches and gum because they're easier and over-the-counter," Mitchell said.
Scott Dotterer, coordinator of the Office of Health Promotion at the DeWeese Health Center, said the Health Promotion Office may also be offering the "Freedom from Smoking" program in January if grants are approved.
Currently, the American Cancer Society's program called "Fresh Start" is being used at Kent State. Dotterer said students should visit the DeWeese Health Center for more information.
"Students have options," he said. "If anyone is interested in quitting, they can come to us."
Smoking is now a big issue to everyone, whether they smoke or not, Simpkins said.
"The only way to protect people from secondhand smoke is to ask smokers to step outside for a few minutes, so their choices don't hurt others," Simpkins said.
This may surprise some people, but Stephenson doesn't see the issue as black-and-white as most do.
"I have a lot of friends who smoke, and I want them to be happy too, so it's a battle," she said. "But they are courteous and don't smoke around me."
Stephenson believes people know about smoking and its dangers; now it's just based on personal decisions.
"I think we all know about the dangers of smoking, but the choice is up to us," she said.
As for now, she will continue to raise money for cystic fibrosis, and she hopes that more people will make the decision not to smoke.
]]>Jesse Williams, a Portland, Ore., janitor who smoked three packs of Marlboros a day, died of lung cancer in 1997. His widow, Mayola, sued Philip Morris for fraud and negligence, alleging that any fears her husband had about becoming ill from smoking were eased by the cigarette-maker's publicity campaign that suggested it was safe. Mayola Williams recalled in court filings that when her husband learned he had inoperable cancer, he said, "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."
The lawsuit that Mayola Williams filed was among many claims filed against tobacco companies in recent years, but one of the few to lead to a multimillion-dollar judgment. An Oregon jury awarded Williams $79.5 million in punitive damages. Such damages are intended to punish defendants beyond the actual damages they caused and deter future bad conduct.
Williams' award was 97 times greater than the actual — or compensatory — damages awarded by the jury, and according to court records it was based partly on the jury's consideration of Philip Morris' harm to other smokers in Oregon.
Now, Williams' case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and has become one of the most significant tests ever of how far a jury can go in punishing a civil defendant. The question in the Williams case is whether the punitive damages award is so disproportionate to the injury to Jesse Williams that it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.
In its appeal, Philip Morris says the Oregon verdict violated due process because it was so much higher than the actual damages caused to Jesse Williams and because jurors were punishing the company for injuries to smokers who were not part of the Williams case.
Mayola Williams' attorney, Robert Peck, says in court papers that the cigarette-maker's efforts to hide the dangers of smoking were "monstrous" and says that if ever a big award were justified, this is the case.
The dispute, to be argued before the high court on Tuesday, is a new round in the court's struggle to draw the line between permissible and unconstitutional punitive damages awards.
Business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, say juries improperly use punitive damage awards to "send a message" to corporate defendants. Consumer advocates and trial lawyers counter that punitive damages help bring accountability to businesses that have a history of abuse.
"The tobacco industry has evaded liability for decades ... and the result has been a public health catastrophe," Trial Lawyers for Public Justice says in a court brief filed in the Williams case.
'Court is on the knife edge'
For decades, the Supreme Court considered such jury awards the domain of the states and gave wide latitude to state judges and juries. In recent years, however, the court has begun to rein in awards by setting criteria for punitive damages. The addition of two new justices last term — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced the late William Rehnquist and the retired Sandra Day O'Connor — could add a wrinkle to the court's approach.
In the justices' most recent ruling on the issue, in 2003, the majority said any punitive damages that are more than 10 times the actual damages for the injury could be presumed to be excessive. Voting 6-3, the court invalidated a $145 million award levied by a jury that had found that the State Farm insurance company acted in bad faith by not settling claims against a policyholder who was involved in a fatal accident.
In the current case, a key question will be whether Philip Morris' conduct was bad enough to justify a punitive damages award beyond the 2003 guideline.
Rehnquist and O'Connor voted with the majority in the State Farm case. Washington lawyer Mark Levy, who follows decisions concerning punitive damages, says that suggests that their replacements, Roberts and Alito, could tip the court's vote either way in assessing whether the award in the Williams case was excessive.
"The court is on the knife edge," Levy says. If Roberts and Alito join the justices who dissented in the State Farm case and want to leave the matter to the states, Levy says, there would be "a sudden and radical change in this area of the law."
1999 award upheld in Oregon court
In her case, Mayola Williams claimed that Philip Morris mounted a fraudulent publicity campaign aimed at minimizing the dangers of smoking. After a month-long trial in 1999, the jury awarded $821,485 in compensatory damages and the $79.5 million in punitive damages.
The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the award. "There can be no dispute that Philip Morris's conduct was extraordinarily reprehensible. (It) knew that smoking caused serious and sometimes fatal disease, but it nevertheless spread false or misleading information to suggest ... that doubts remained about that issue. ... The scheme was damaging the health of a very large group of Oregonians — the smoking public — and was killing a number of that group."
In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Philip Morris' lawyer, Andrew Frey tells the justices that the Oregon court misinterpreted recent decisions by the high court, particularly the 2003 ruling. He says the State Farm decision does not allow a company to be punished for harm to people who were not involved in the case. Frey says calculating such damages for injuries to outside parties creates an unfair risk of duplicative and excessive punishment.
Peck, Williams' attorney, says the cigarette-maker is seeking to turn "review of punitive damage awards (into) a simple arithmetic exercise," based on the ratio between actual and punitive. He says the Oregon jury's verdict followed proper criteria "to achieve deterrence" and reverse some of Philip Morris' "ill-gotten profit."
]]>Jesse Williams, a Portland, Ore., janitor who smoked three packs of Marlboros a day, died of lung cancer in 1997. His widow, Mayola, sued Philip Morris for fraud and negligence, alleging that any fears her husband had about becoming ill from smoking were eased by the cigarette-maker's publicity campaign that suggested it was safe. Mayola Williams recalled in court filings that when her husband learned he had inoperable cancer, he said, "Those darn cigarette people finally did it. They were lying all the time."
The lawsuit that Mayola Williams filed was among many claims filed against tobacco companies in recent years, but one of the few to lead to a multimillion-dollar judgment. An Oregon jury awarded Williams $79.5 million in punitive damages. Such damages are intended to punish defendants beyond the actual damages they caused and deter future bad conduct.
Williams' award was 97 times greater than the actual — or compensatory — damages awarded by the jury, and according to court records it was based partly on the jury's consideration of Philip Morris' harm to other smokers in Oregon.
Now, Williams' case is before the U.S. Supreme Court and has become one of the most significant tests ever of how far a jury can go in punishing a civil defendant. The question in the Williams case is whether the punitive damages award is so disproportionate to the injury to Jesse Williams that it violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of due process of law.
In its appeal, Philip Morris says the Oregon verdict violated due process because it was so much higher than the actual damages caused to Jesse Williams and because jurors were punishing the company for injuries to smokers who were not part of the Williams case.
Mayola Williams' attorney, Robert Peck, says in court papers that the cigarette-maker's efforts to hide the dangers of smoking were "monstrous" and says that if ever a big award were justified, this is the case.
The dispute, to be argued before the high court on Tuesday, is a new round in the court's struggle to draw the line between permissible and unconstitutional punitive damages awards.
Business groups, such as the National Association of Manufacturers, say juries improperly use punitive damage awards to "send a message" to corporate defendants. Consumer advocates and trial lawyers counter that punitive damages help bring accountability to businesses that have a history of abuse.
"The tobacco industry has evaded liability for decades ... and the result has been a public health catastrophe," Trial Lawyers for Public Justice says in a court brief filed in the Williams case.
'Court is on the knife edge'
For decades, the Supreme Court considered such jury awards the domain of the states and gave wide latitude to state judges and juries. In recent years, however, the court has begun to rein in awards by setting criteria for punitive damages. The addition of two new justices last term — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, who replaced the late William Rehnquist and the retired Sandra Day O'Connor — could add a wrinkle to the court's approach.
In the justices' most recent ruling on the issue, in 2003, the majority said any punitive damages that are more than 10 times the actual damages for the injury could be presumed to be excessive. Voting 6-3, the court invalidated a $145 million award levied by a jury that had found that the State Farm insurance company acted in bad faith by not settling claims against a policyholder who was involved in a fatal accident.
In the current case, a key question will be whether Philip Morris' conduct was bad enough to justify a punitive damages award beyond the 2003 guideline.
Rehnquist and O'Connor voted with the majority in the State Farm case. Washington lawyer Mark Levy, who follows decisions concerning punitive damages, says that suggests that their replacements, Roberts and Alito, could tip the court's vote either way in assessing whether the award in the Williams case was excessive.
"The court is on the knife edge," Levy says. If Roberts and Alito join the justices who dissented in the State Farm case and want to leave the matter to the states, Levy says, there would be "a sudden and radical change in this area of the law."
1999 award upheld in Oregon court
In her case, Mayola Williams claimed that Philip Morris mounted a fraudulent publicity campaign aimed at minimizing the dangers of smoking. After a month-long trial in 1999, the jury awarded $821,485 in compensatory damages and the $79.5 million in punitive damages.
The Oregon Supreme Court upheld the award. "There can be no dispute that Philip Morris's conduct was extraordinarily reprehensible. (It) knew that smoking caused serious and sometimes fatal disease, but it nevertheless spread false or misleading information to suggest ... that doubts remained about that issue. ... The scheme was damaging the health of a very large group of Oregonians — the smoking public — and was killing a number of that group."
In his appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, Philip Morris' lawyer, Andrew Frey tells the justices that the Oregon court misinterpreted recent decisions by the high court, particularly the 2003 ruling. He says the State Farm decision does not allow a company to be punished for harm to people who were not involved in the case. Frey says calculating such damages for injuries to outside parties creates an unfair risk of duplicative and excessive punishment.
Peck, Williams' attorney, says the cigarette-maker is seeking to turn "review of punitive damage awards (into) a simple arithmetic exercise," based on the ratio between actual and punitive. He says the Oregon jury's verdict followed proper criteria "to achieve deterrence" and reverse some of Philip Morris' "ill-gotten profit."
]]>According to a recent survey of registered voters by Zogby International, 45% of Americans would support a federal law making cigarettes illegal in the next five to ten years. 57% of 18-29 year olds were in favor of the idea. These numbers prompt a series of questions: What if cigarettes became the new Prohibition? Could cigarette prohibition really happen? How do drug prohibition regimes come about? What do public health advocates think about banning cigarettes? How unhealthy is smoking?
What if cigarettes became the new Prohibition?
Cigarette prohibition would have some obvious benefits. Millions of American smokers would finally quit, and millions more would never start. Smoking-related death and disease would drop significantly.
But that’s not all that would happen. Many Americans would continue to smoke, and Big Tobacco would be replaced by a violent black market. "Tobacco-related murders" would increase dramatically as criminal organizations competed with one another for turf and markets, and ordinary crime would skyrocket as millions of tobacco junkies sought ways to feed their costly addiction.
Prohibition would pave the way for a costly governmental "war on tobacco" that would put tobacco producers, pushers and users in prison. At the same time, the federal and state governments would lose more than $20 billion per year in tobacco tax revenues.
More information
"Keep Cigarettes Legal"
Nadelmann, Ethan, The Huffington Post. October 26, 2006.
"New Drug Policy Alliance/Zogby Poll Finds 45 Percent Support Making Cigarettes Illegal"
Drug Policy Alliance. October 26, 2006.
"Cigarette Taxes, Black Markets, and Crime"
Fleenor, Patrick. Cato Institute; February 6, 2003.
"Nightmare of Crack Nicotine"
Wheeler, Jack, Washington Times, August 29, 2002.
Ten-Year Revenue Projections for New Federal Cigarette Tax Increases
Lindblom, Eric. National Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, June 2003.
"Ethan Nadelmann on Tobacco Prohibition"
Nadelmann, Ethan. YouTube.com, October 26, 2006.
Prisons provide the closest model we have in the U.S. to complete cigarette prohibition. A law that went into effect in 2005 in California outlawed all tobacco products in state prisons.
More information
Letter from DPA California Capital Office associate director Nikos Leverenz to California Department of Corrections
Leverenz, Nikos. Sacramento, CA, October 6, 2005.
"California, Cigarettes and Prisons: Ban Smoking, Not Tobacco"
Rodu, Brad, Las Vegas Review-Journal. February 05, 2004.
"Prison Smoking Ban Likely to Bring a Pack of Changes"
Warren, Jennifer, Los Angeles Times, June 30, 2005.
"Tobacco Ban in State Prisons Will Create Black Market, Violence"
Newman, Tony, San Francisco Chronicle, July 13, 2005.
Could cigarette prohibition really happen?
Drug prohibitions tend to be embraced not when a drug is most popular but rather when use is declining, as tobacco use is now. We’ve become accustomed to restrictions on smoking – sale to minors, and bans on smoking in more and more workplaces and public spaces – and on advertising. And we hate the corporations that profit off this deadly product.
More information
A Federal Ban on Cigarettes? Nationwide Survey of 1,200 Registered Voters
Zogby International for Drug Policy Alliance. July 2006.
"U.S. Cigarette Sales Reach Lowest Point in More Than 50 Years"
Cesar Fax, Center for Substance Abuse Research, July 24, 2006.
Health, United States, 2005 with Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans
National Center for Health Statistics; 2005: pp. 32-35, 254-258.
The ever higher taxes and broader bans on cigarettes have played an important role in reducing both the number of smokers and the amount they smoke. Persisting with these policies will no doubt lead to further reductions. But there is a point of declining returns at which the costs of such policies begin to outweigh the benefits. It is true that stigmatizing smokers and smoking persuades some to stop and deters others from starting, but demonizing and dehumanizing those who persist is both morally wrong and dangerous.
More information
"Was Weyco Wrong to Fire Smokers?"
Drug Policy Alliance; February 2005.
Other nations have tried complete smoking bans with little success, France and India among them. Recently the European Union decided that employers can discriminate against smokers in making hiring decisions.
More information
"EU says smokers not protected by law"
Associated Press, August 7, 2006.
"The new deviant class: smokers"
Patterson, Patricia, Toronto Star , August 20, 2006.
"The First Nonsmoking Nation" (Bhutan)
Weiner, Eric, Slate , January 20, 2005.
How do drug prohibition regimes come about?
As the number of smokers drops, the dangerous logic of prohibition becomes ever more tempting. But prohibition is not a simple question of public health—it is closely tied to racism and classism.
For example, the first drug prohibition in the U.S. was imposed on opium. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, opium addiction was most common among middle and upper-class white women and was seen as a health problem.
That perception began to shift as opium smoking became associated with Chinese immigrants in the western United States. Fears that respectable white women were being seduced into a life of prostitution and debauchery in opium dens were inflamed by vivid reports. In 1902, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit of the American Pharmaceutical Association declared: "If the 'Chinaman' cannot get along without his 'dope,' we can get along without him." In 1909, California outlawed the importation of smokeable opium.
More information
Dark Paradise: Opiate Addiction in America Before 1940
Courtwright, David T., Harvard University Press, 1982.
Perceptions of cocaine use went through a similar transformation. As with opium, cocaine use in the early twentieth century was most common among well-to-do white women.
In 1910 Dr. Hamilton Wright, considered by some the father of U.S. anti-narcotics laws, reported that U.S. contractors were giving cocaine to their Black employees to get more work out of them. A few years later, stories began to proliferate about "cocaine-crazed Negroes" in the South. These stories were in part motivated by a desire to persuade Southern members of Congress to support the proposed Harrison Narcotics Act, which would greatly expand the federal government's power to control drugs. This lie was also necessary since, even though drugs were widely used in America, very little crime was associated with the users.
More information
"The History of Legislative Control Over Opium, Cocaine, and their Derivatives"
Musto, D.F. Dealing with drugs: Consequences of government control. Ed. Ronald Hamowy. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1987. 37-71. Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. 2006. DRCNet.
What do public health advocates think about banning cigarettes?
Public health advocates are on the forefront of efforts to reduce smoking, but they do not necessarily advocate prohibition. Many leading public health advocates who oppose smoking do not see prohibition as a viable solution.
More information
Longtime anti-tobacco advocate Dr. Stanton Glantz does not favor prohibition, instead advocating changing cultural attitudes about smoking.
Former FDA commissioner David Kessler said on PBS, "It's a product that 50 million Americans use. Prohibition won't work. So how do you reduce the use of an unsafe product?"
Matthew Myers of Tobacco-Free Kids had the following exchange with television host Tucker Carlson:
MYERS: Well, it should -- it should be legal because we have 46 million Americans smokers. We know that Prohibition...
CARLSON: Because a lot of people do it, it should be legal?
MYERS: Well, prohibition wouldn't work. It would be bad public policy. It would be bad...
LEVY: Well, how about -- how about illegal for anybody to start smoking (UNINTELLIGIBLE)...
MYERS: It would be bad. . . Right now it is illegal to sell cigarettes to kids in this country.
MYERS: No public health person I know is in favor of prohibition. What we're in favor of is some simple rules. . . This industry should have to abide by the same standards as others. If you can make the product less hazardous so you kill fewer people you should do it. Ford had to do it with Pinto. This industry could do it...
How unhealthy is smoking?
Cigarettes are deadly. They lead to premature death for 400,000 people each year in the U.S. Every year, 40% of American smokers try to quit but are unable to do so.
More information
TIPS - CDC fact sheets on the harms of smoking
Stupid - Ontario, Canada's youth anti-smoking campaign
]]>WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court blocked a landmark judgment against the tobacco industry Tuesday, allowing the companies to continue selling "light" and "low-tar" cigarettes until their appeals can be reviewed.
The decision by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit also allows the companies to continue for now the advertising campaigns that a federal judge in August ruled were misleading.
Without comment, the appeals court granted the tobacco companies' request to put Judge Gladys Kessler's order on hold.
In mid-August, Kessler ruled that the companies had violated racketeering laws and conspired for decades to mislead the public about the health hazards of smoking.
The judge ordered the companies to publish in newspapers and on their Web sites "corrective statements" on the adverse health effects and addictiveness of smoking and nicotine.
She also ordered tobacco companies to stop labeling cigarettes as "low-tar," "light," "ultra light" or "mild," since such cigarettes have been found to be no safer than others because of how people smoke them.
Kessler's ruling was appealed by Philip Morris USA, Lorillard , Brown & Williamson Corp. and British American Tobacco PLC.
"The company believes the trial court's decision is contrary to the law and facts presented during trial, and looks forward to the opportunity to present its arguments to the appellate court," said William S. Ohlemeyer, vice president and associate general counsel for Altria Group, the parent company of Philip Morris.
No date has been set for arguments. It could be more than a year before an opinion is released.
The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. is trying to fool Ohio voters, says the grandson of the tobacco company's founder, and he was in Toledo yesterday, he said, to set the record straight. If Ohioans want to curb tobacco-related deaths, they need to vote against tobacco-company bankrolled Issue 4 and vote Yes on Issue 5, Patrick Reynolds told a gathering at the Toledo-Lucas County Health Department.
"R.J. Reynolds is funding the Issue 4 campaign. They advertise it as a law to protect nonsmokers, but the truth is, Issue 4 would allow smoking almost everywhere," he said.
Passage of Issue 4, a consti-tutional amendment, would overturn every smoking law in Ohio, including laws in Toledo and Bowling Green. If both Issue 4 and Issue 5 pass, only the less-restrictive Issue 4 becomes law because it is a constitutional amendment.
Issue 5 would prohibit smoking in nearly all public places, including bars and restaurants.
Advertisements for the tobacco-industry-supported Issue 4 "claim it will protect public health," Mr. Reynolds said. "That lie is even harder to swallow than their claim for years that it was never proven that smoking causes disease."
Jacob Evans, a spokesman for Smoke Less Ohio, which supports Issue 4, said the amendment will allow smoking only in businesses that bar minors.
"Very few businesses could put up a sign 'minors prohibited' and expect to stay in business," Mr. Evans said.
Restaurants with enclosed smoking sections, along with bars and bowling alleys could continue to allow smoking, he said.
"That's misleading because children still go into restaurants and bowling alleys," Mr. Reynolds said. "Those aren't necessarily adult places. Issue 4 claims separate smoking sections are going to protect the health of nonsmokers. Well, it's really just a cosmetic measure."
Issue 4 does not require separate ventilation for smoking sections.
Mr. Reynolds, in Ohio as a volunteer on behalf of Issue 5, is founder of the Los Angeles-based Foundation for a Smokefree America.
Although tobacco is what made his family rich, 57-year-old Mr. Reynolds said he divested himself of all his tobacco stock in 1979, before he quit smoking.
"I was uncomfortable owning stock in a company I knew was profiting from the deaths of 420,000 Americans every year." Among those tobacco-related deaths are his father, R.J. Reynolds, Jr., who died from emphysema, and his oldest brother, R.J. Reynolds III, also a victim of emphysema. His surviving brother also suffers from emphysema, he said.
Still, it was six years after Patrick Reynolds got rid of his tobacco stock that he quit smoking, successful finally on his 12th attempt.
For people trying to quit, smoke-free bars and restaurants are a terrific aid, he said.
"When they don't see people light up in public, they are less tempted to light up themselves."
R.J. Reynolds spokesman Craig Fischel said: "While he is entitled to his opinion, the real decision will come from Ohio voters. They will decide what smoking policy is best for the state.
"Somebody has to stand up for rights of smokers so that their voices are heard," Mr. Fischel said. "If we're not going to do it, who will?"
Mr. Reynolds summed up the difference between the two ballot issues.
"Do you trust a company who's profiting off the deaths of 420,000 Americans every year? Or do you trust the American Cancer Society, which backs Issue 5 and first proved the link between smoking and lung cancer?" Mr. Reynolds asked the group at the health department gathering.
Some 50 members of the medical community were on hand to hear Mr. Reynold's discuss the tobacco campaign.
"•'Issue 5 to stay alive' is our mantra in the medical profession," said Dr. Donna Woodson, president of the Toledo-Lucas County Health board.
Dr. John Schaeufele, a pediatrician at Mercy Children's Hospital, said a 2003 study showed 91 percent of children hospitalized at Mercy for respiratory ailments were exposed to second-hand smoke at home.
"Only 30 percent of families smoke," Dr. Schaeufele said. "That's an extraordinarily telling statistic. Children cannot vote. We need to vote for them."
]]>Bars and parks in most of DeKalb County could become no-smoking areas under an extraordinarily strict ordinance passed Tuesday that could become law by year's end. Unincorporated DeKalb already had smoking restrictions tougher than the statewide ban that took effect last year. In addition to outlawing cigarettes in parks, the measure removes exemptions for bars and adult entertainment venues. The DeKalb County Commission passed the ordinance 6-1, and it now goes to Chief Executive Officer Vernon Jones.
"It's the most comprehensive clean indoor air act in Georgia," said Commissioner Burrell Ellis, the bill's sponsor. Ellis also sponsored the county's existing prohibitions, which banned smoking in restaurants and most other public places when it took effect in 2003.
Anti-smoking groups applauded the new restrictions. Eric Bailey, a manager with the American Cancer Society, said his group had met with Ellis over the past year in hopes of passing legislation that promised "100 percent" smoke-free air. He said the state prohibition that exempts bars is inadequate because it doesn't protect bar workers.
"There should be no exemptions," Bailey said.
Not so fast, Jones said.
He has until Nov. 3 to issue a veto, and he hinted Tuesday evening that he was contemplating one.
Jones said the legislation was "radical" because it applied to so many places, including county-owned parking lots. That could raise enforcement issues, he said. "I'm not going to have my police department to focus on patting down people in the parking lot who are smoking. There are more serious things" for them to do, he said. He said there are uncertainties in the law, like whether it applies to public rights of way at the end of driveways.
County Commissioner Elaine Boyer, who cast the lone vote in opposition, also cited enforcement as a concern.
The restrictions wouldn't apply to the cities in DeKalb, only the unincorporated areas.
The law will take effect 60 days after Jones approves it, if he chooses to do so.
The legislation would increase the fine. Currently, a first offense nets a maximum fine of $50. Under the new legislation, someone caught violating the smoking law could be fined $500 and would face a minimum fine of $100.
The only public places in DeKalb where the county won't ban smoking if this new prohibition becomes law are tobacco stores, property owned by other governments and rooms designated for smoking in hotels and motels. And, of course, people will still be allowed to smoke at home and in their cars.
Even if DeKalb doesn't approve these latest revisions, it will still be among two dozen jurisdictions with smoking prohibitions that exceed the state's. Smoking in restaurants is illegal in the county, but under state law there is an exemption for restaurants that maintain a separate smoking room with an independent ventilation system.
When Ron Wolf, an opponent of smoking bans, was told of DeKalb's latest effort, he said it wasn't possible for the county to be any stricter than it already was. "They already have one of the strictest laws in the state," said Wolf, executive director of the Georgia Restaurant Association. His response after he heard the details of the latest desired crackdown: "Wow, they really did go all out, didn't they."
Wolf said businesses should get to choose whether to allow smoking on their premises, and he said if there must be a ban it should be consistent statewide, so establishments aren't placed at a disadvantage with competitors in more lenient jurisdictions.
But one critical restaurant and bar owner in DeKalb County shrugged off the latest proposal.
Aaron Melton, owner of the Melton's App & Tap on North Decatur Road, said the county's first foray into anti-smoking legislation nearly four years ago cost him dearly, but said his business adapted and is largely immune to anti-smoking legislation now.
"For me, the damage
has already been done," said Melton, who estimates he lost $3,000
a week in revenue during the first year of DeKalb's smoking ban.
During that time, his smoking clientele drank at Decatur bars instead -- before that city banned smoking, too, he said. Melton said the loss of revenue forced him to close a new App & Tap in Decatur that wasn't yet on its feet. He also re-wrote the menu to attract more families looking for meals.
Melton said he still gets a
few smokers, but most either stay home or go elsewhere, where enforcement isn't an issue.
"Some of them go to bars that will look the other way," he said.
]]>The city’s war on drugs yesterday became a war on blunts.
After a City Council hearing that was more an anti-drug public service announcement, the loose cigars available at most inner-city convenience stores and Chinese takeout joints — typically emptied out and filled with marijuana — may soon become illegal to sell.
Council’s Committee on Licenses & Inspections unanimously approved a bill yesterday to outlaw the sale of “loosies” and other drug paraphernalia, including cigarette wrapping papers. The full Council is expected to approve the measure next month.
“I think it sends the wrong message when you can get a blunt or rolling papers with your Now and Laters or Lemonheads or pretzel sticks,” said Stephen Clay, the medical director at the Gaudenzia drug treatment facility.
Clay said that those coming to Gaudenzia for treatment are asked to write a life story. Many, he said, start their stories at the age of 7 or 8, when they smoked their first blunt.
Activists say the blunts come in more flavors than soda and their easy availability on the streets helps lead to a feeling of “lawlessness.” Blunts are sometimes laced with PCP or cocaine, activists say, for an even greater high.
“It just seems outrageous what’s going on in the city,” said Councilwoman Joan Krajewski. “It is a serious problem plaguing our city.”
According to one major retailer, they would stop selling small packages of blunt cigars if the bill passed. The bill outlaws sales of cigars in packages of fewer than six, except by specialty tobacco shops.
“We have a long history of not selling items of that nature, especially the rolling papers and so forth,” said Lori Bruce, a spokesperson for Wawa. “We certainly will continue to work with City Council and comply with whatever it is that they mandate.”
]]>AD "If Issue 4 Wins, You Lose," a 30-second ad from Smoke Free Ohio, promoting state Issue 5 and against Issue 4. It's running with a companion ad, "Don't Be Fooled by the Smokescreen."
SCRIPT
Tracy Sabetta, co-chairwoman of Smoke Free Ohio: "On Election Day, you will choose between two very different smoking issues, Issue 4 and Issue 5. Issue 4 is backed by big tobacco. It would keep smoke in restaurants and other places we go with our families. It would overturn 21 local smoke-free laws, and leave half a million workers exposed to smoke. Remember, Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment. If both issues pass, only Issue 4 becomes law. If Issue 4 wins, you lose. Vote no on Issue 4. Vote yes for Issue 5."
STRATEGY
Issue 4 and Issue 5 are competing statewide smoking laws, and voter confusion is inevitable. This is the rare instance in an issue campaign where a group promoting one issue has to go negative on another issue.
FACT CHECK
Issue 5, backed by the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society, is a ballot initiative that would ban smoking in almost all public places.
Issue 4 is a proposed constitutional amendment seeking to head off an outright ban through less-restrictive regulations.
Even the names of the groups are confusing. Issue 5's committee is Smoke Free Ohio; Issue 4's campaign is called Smoke Less Ohio. (Note that the space between "Smoke" and "Less" changes the meaning considerably.)
Smoke Less Ohio's coalition does include a number of tobacco interests, which are disclosed on its Web site: the Cigar Association of America, the Lorillard Tobacco Co., the National Association of Tobacco Outlets, the Retail Tobacco Dealers Association, the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Swedish Match and Swisher International.
It also includes lobbyists for nursing homes, bowling alleys, vending machines, grocers, bars, restaurants, gas stations - and 425 small businesses.
Smoke Free Ohio is correct: If Issue 4 passes - even by a small margin - it would wipe out a landslide by Issue 5. It would also block any other state or local legislation on smoking in the future. That's because Issue 4 is a constitutional amendment, and can only be repealed by a vote of the people.
Issue 4 would wipe out local laws banning smoking in 21 Ohio cities, mostly Columbus and its suburbs. The only Cincinnati-area city with a ban is Fairfield.
But if the issue is local control, it's worth noting that Issue 5 would also override Cincinnati's smoking legislation.
RESPONSE
"To be clear, as our amendment clearly states and we've stated time and again, it would have to be in a separately enclosed area," said Jacob Evans, a lobbyist for tavern owners and spokesman for Smoke Less Ohio. "The impression that they're creating that this will occur anywhere in the restaurant is misleading. ... What Ohioans want is a common statewide policy."
]]>Three stories high and a little more than a thousand feet deep, the cavernous tin barn structure standing in Darrell Jackson's backyard is in many ways a symbol of change for the state's tobacco industry in a post-buyout era. Six acres' worth of leafy, rust-colored burley tobacco dangles from its rafters in thick clusters, hanging limply like tattered rags -- a visible departure from the Henry County farmer's usual harvest.
Like many Southside tobacco farmers, Jackson has for years grown flue-cured tobacco, a heat-dried variety used in domestic blend cigarettes, as part of the federal tobacco-quota program.
But now that the program has been eliminated, and with it the geographic boundaries for growing certain types of tobacco, Jackson is switching some of his land over to the burley variety as a way to offset rising fuel costs and bring in some additional income for the farm.
"It beats the devil out of going up the road all the time to go to the factory," said Jackson, 43, who used to work at a furniture manufacturing company during the winter months, a downtime for flue-cured tobacco growers, to keep the cash flow steady.
Burley tobacco is a slightly different plant variety that is harvested once a year and hung out to dry in large, drafty barns for up to four months. Under the federal quota program, burley tobacco was grown only in certain geographic areas, such as in far Southwest Virginia, but those boundaries were lifted during the 2004 buyout, leaving behind an untapped market for tobacco growers in other parts of Virginia.
Seeing a new opportunity emerge for competitive tobacco markets, a handful of Southside tobacco farmers are now are sinking thousands of dollars into building barns for curing burley tobacco and reshuffling the regional boundaries of Virginia's tobacco industry.
The shift is one of many changes resulting from a massive overhaul of the industry in 2004 when Congress approved a $10 billion buyout eliminating a federal tobacco quota program established during the Great Depression to stabilize prices. In efforts to make U.S. tobacco growers more competitive on the world market, the buyout rid the industry of its quota leasing systems, causing market prices to drop and pushing the industry into a new free-enterprise market that allows growers to deal directly with cigarette companies.
So far the prospects of this year's harvest are looking slightly better than last year's, when growers scaled back production and acreage for flue-cured tobacco, the mainstay of central Virginia growers, hit a record low.
Flue-cured tobacco yields are expected to increase this year with about 17,000 acres being harvested statewide, a 21 percent increase over 2005, according to estimates by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but down 26 percent from 2004.
Tobacco production has yet to rebound completely, and as the market settles, many growers are still finding themselves on wobbly ground and fear being stubbed out by rising fuel and labor expenses.
"The profit margin is real tight," said Stan Duffer, a tobacco specialist with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, adding that this is a pivotal time for many growers -- and the industry at large in Virginia -- forcing them to think hard about whether they should stick with the business or retire.
One region hit particularly hard in terms of losing production was far Southwest Virginia, where burley tobacco has historically dominated the fields.
Because most burley tobacco farms were small, family-owned operations, the elimination of this federal program was an excuse for some tobacco growers to either retire or quit the business, said Danny Peek, a Virginia Cooperative Extension agent and regional burley tobacco specialist for Southwest Virginia.
Production of burley tobacco dropped by half after the buyout from 5,900 acres in 2004 to 2,800 acres in 2005, and the government estimates that figure will dip to 2,500 acres this year -- although Peek is wary of those predictions and says it is difficult to have reliable numbers at this point. Tobacco farmers are not required to report their acreage and many do not.
"I feel very confident that there are at least 3,200 acres [of burley tobacco] in all Virginia," Peek said, estimating that about 75 percent of that is still being grown in far Southwest Virginia.
Still, companies are scrambling to make up for a loss in burley production. Demand has been so great in some areas that the companies are offering monetary incentives in hopes of persuading farmers to add burley tobacco to their fields.
Johnny Angell, a tobacco farmer in Franklin County, said he split his tobacco crops between burley and flue-cured this year -- both of which are used to produce domestic-blend cigarettes.
Harvesting burley tobacco, he said, is slightly more labor intensive -- each stock must be cut and hung by hand -- but he can get on average 12 to 15 cents more a pound as opposed to selling flue-cured tobacco.
Angell, who has a contract with Richmond-based cigarette giant Philip Morris USA also notes that flue-cured tobacco, which is cured by artificial blasts of heat, requires substantial amounts of natural gas or heating oil. "You're sort of swapping one expense for the other," he added.
A dip in prices for flue-cured tobacco is also causing some farmers to make the switch-over to sowing their fields with burley tobacco.
Connell Macenhimer, a flue-cured tobacco grower in Franklin County, said he's receiving about the same price as he did 25 years ago under his current contract with the Stabilization Co-op, a group of buyers that offers farmers some price supports. He has already cut back his tobacco acreage this year to 55, down from 200 acres before the 2004 buyout, and if production costs continue to rise, he's thinking about cutting out of the business completely. "If I'm not going to make any money, I'm not going to do it," the 54-year-old farmer said, adding that he's had several other colleagues threaten to leave the business next year because of paltry profits made this year.
Some industry observers are skeptical that swapping one variety for another will do much good in solving all cost woes.
"Growers are just trying to do something different to survive but that hasn't been the answer," said Scott Reiter, a Campbell County Cooperative Extension agent. "The cost to produce tobacco has made it extremely tight to make any money this year -- for any of the varieties," he said, adding that the acreage in Campbell County dropped 60 to 70 percent for all varieties in the last two years. The county now has 12 tobacco growers.
Plus, shifting to burley production often means sinking more money into new equipment and building a barn. The cost of a new barn alone can be anywhere from $15,000 to $20,000 depending on the structure's size, Reiter estimated.
"For several years you're just growing tobacco to pay for that barn," Reiter said.
Jackson acknowledges that he is in it for the long haul. The new barn set him back about $30,000 and will take three to four years to pay off. But with energy costs rising, he says he can't afford to double the cost of curing his tobacco. And Phillip Morris USA has already offered to reimburse him for up to $2,500 on the cost of building the new burley barn. "This right here," he said spreading his hand over a wilted, fan-shaped burley tobacco leaf. "There's a heck of demand for it."
]]>ORANGE BEACH -- City officials from both of Baldwin County's beach cities are planning to ban smoking in most public places by the start of next year. The Orange Beach City Council held a public meeting Monday afternoon to start discussing a proposal to go smoke free in all but private homes and clubs, hotel rooms designated for smokers and bars.
Gulf Shores City Councilman Robert Craft attended the 3 p.m. meeting and said that his city was also pursuing a smoking ban: "We're very much inclined to do the same thing that you're talking about doing."
The Gulf Shores City Council will discuss the measure at its Monday work session, Craft said.
The proposal Orange Beach is mulling would make it illegal to smoke at any public property and in any work place. Exceptions to the ban would be private homes, private clubs, hotel and motel rooms designated for smoking, tobacco specialty shops, performance stages and bars -- defined as establishments that make 75 percent or more of their money on alcohol sales.
"We all know that the surgeon general came out in June with definitive results that secondhand smoke does kill and it's the third-leading cause of preventable death in the United States," said Orange Beach Councilwoman Tracy Holiday, who proposed the ordinance. "I think based on that we know this is a public health and safety issue."
Holiday said she wasn't sure that Orange Beach could prevent smoking on the beach because the city owns no public beach area. Craft said he wasn't sure yet how Gulf Shores would treat its many public beaches, or, for that matter, other outdoor areas such as golf courses. Enforcement of a smoking ban outdoors would be tricky, Craft said, and will be among the likely topics when council takes up the matter Monday.
In early August, Foley approved an ordinance that will prohibit smoking in most places open to the general public -- bars being the exception -- by Nov. 5. Fairhope followed a week later with its own similar tobacco ban that goes into effect on Nov. 20.
Tina Findley, a tobacco prevention and control coordinator for the Alabama Department of Public Health, said there's no safe level of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke and even a small amount can cause health problems.
"Especially when a child is sitting in a restaurant and they're sitting there for an hour and they're around smoking, even if it's on the other side of the building, it's like they smoked three cigarettes themselves," she said.
]]>PEOPLE living in Scotland's most deprived areas are spending £1.3million on cigarettes EVERY day. Official figures obtained by the Sunday Mail reveal it is the poorest people who can least afford it who spend the most on tobacco. Richer smokers with money to burn buy fewer cigarettes and more of them appear to be giving up.
Deprived areas have three times as many smokers as more affluent places. Male smokers in the poorest parts of Scotland get through around 17 cigarettes a day and women average 16.
With a pack of 20 costing £5.20, that's £31 a week for men and £29 for women - almost a quarter of their weekly income.
Their weekly budget is below £131 - just above the official poverty line of £98.
The richest male smokers smoke an average of 13 a week and the women have 12.
Maureen Moore, chairman of anti-smoking group Ash Scotland, said: "The Executive have started to concentrate on this but projects need to be targeted at deprived areas where there is clearly a desperate problem. When we see people suffering cancer, heart disease and strokes, it seems obvious that finding ways of stopping people from smoking in the first place is the most cost effective solution."
An estimated 310,217 Scots in the poorest areas are smokers.
They spend an incredible £1,330,831 on cigarettes each day.
Habit
There are three times fewer smokers living in the most affluent areas - where the average weekly household income is above £800.
They spend £352,608 on cigarettes every day.
The figures from the Office for National Statistics are based on research done in council wards across the country.
A 20-a-day habit costs Scots £1900 a year with 89 per cent going straight to the taxman. Pro-smoking groups say the steady rise in tobacco tax has created a poverty trap.
Simon Clarke of campaign group Forest (Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco) said: "We have a ludicrous situation here.
"The taxation of tobacco products has been counterproductive and contributes towards poverty.
"The people it hits are the less well off, the elderly and those who find it hard to give up."
Health Minister Andy Kerr said £4million has been dedicated to trying to help poor people quit.
He said: "It has long been recognised that there is a strong link between smoking and deprivation.
"That is why over the next two years, £4 million is being allocated to help target intensive cessation support to areas of deprivation. "We are taking cessation work into new environments such as bingo halls to reach out to more people."
Impact
SNP MSP Stewart Maxwell, who spearheaded the proposals to ban smoking in enclosed spaces, said: "Anti-smoking projects have had an effect in affluent areas where the number of smokers is going down and down and down.
"But it has had little or no impact in areas where it really matters.
"Smoking is an addiction and it's too simplistic to just expect those in deprived areas to stop buying cigarettes."
]]>I read with some regret and no little disbelief the multi-signature letter in your Letters page in conjunction with your own editorial (26 September) regarding the so-called success of the smoking ban.
The smoking ban is anything but a success. It has caused financial hardship to many licence-holders who have watched their pubs, clubs and bingo halls empty since its introduction.
It, therefore, galls me to have to read such rubbish as "the smoking ban would not have worked without the hard work of licence-holders". They were badgered into enforcement of this unjust ban with threats of heavy fines by the Scottish Executive.
If all the body worshippers are so confident that the majority in this democratic country welcomes the smoking ban, then let them put it to the people in a general vote.
]]>Situated just steps away from the MU campus, the Tiger Sinclair gas station has an advantage when it comes to tobacco sales.
Oftentimes, owner Cindy Mutrux said, students who are about to head out of state will come into the store to stock up on cheap cigarettes.
“I have kids from New York and Chicago that will buy five cartons to last them until they get back here because in their states, cigarettes are so expensive,” Mutrux said.
At 17 cents per pack, Missouri’s tobacco tax is second lowest in the nation. Because of this, cigarettes sold in the state cost much less than they do in other places, where the average tax added on is around $1.
If voters pass an initiative on Nov. 7 to raise the tobacco tax to 97 cents, the cost of a pack of cigarettes in the state will increase by 80 cents. This has tobacco retailers worried the incentive to purchase cigarettes in Missouri may disappear.
“The bottom line is, right now, Missouri has a tax advantage over all eight of our border states,” said Ron Leone, executive director of the Missouri Petroleum and Convenience Store Association. “If Amendment 3 passes, it will level that tax advantage and put us at a tax disadvantage.”
Currently, Leone said, tobacco retailers in Missouri’s border counties get much of their profit from smokers who cross over from states such as Illinois, where the tobacco tax is 98 cents.
If Missouri’s tax rises to almost a dollar, Leone said he worries that sales at convenience stores, gas stations and other tobacco retailers could be pinched.
“When we no longer provide a financial incentive for people to come to Missouri, not only is it going to hurt my members in terms of lost profits, but also lost sales and tax revenues,” he said.
In 2002, Illinois increased the tax on a pack of cigarettes by 40 cents. The state’s Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability estimates that over the past four years, a small portion of Illinois’ tobacco sales have been lost to border counties in Missouri and Indiana.
Kansas also raised its tobacco tax in 2002, to 79 cents per pack from 24 cents. Ron Spidle, owner of the discount retailer Smokes For Less, said he had to shut down four of his six stores in the state as a result of the increase.
If Missouri raises its tax, Spidle said he worries he may have to close some of his 10 stores in Missouri, including one in Columbia.
Kurt Ribisl, a researcher at the University of North Carolina who specializes in the study of tobacco control policy, said that although an increase in tobacco tax could hurt some retailers, it is not likely to cause the state’s economy as a whole to suffer.
“People say that if you raise the price up, all of a sudden you’ll get less money, but that’s absolutely false,” he said.
Ribisl recently studied the employment levels of tobacco retailers across the nation between 1994 and 2004. What he found, he said, is that although tobacco stores, gas stations and convenience stores did see a decline in sales and consequently, a decrease in employment, supermarkets and other large stores that sell tobacco did not.
“Employment is an indicator of the health of a retail sector, so if sales are really dropping in a store they often have to cut back on the number of people,” Ribisl said. “We saw that although there were some declining sales in tobacco stores and convenience stores, supermarkets and others that sell cigarettes actually showed an increase in employment over this period.”
Nationwide, he said, there are 51,343 supermarkets that sell tobacco, compared with 6,184 smaller tobacco retailers.
“Overall, they cancel each other out so there’s no economic harm,” Ribisl said.
Those in support of the tax increase argue that the true economic burden is the costs of tobacco-related illnesses.
“If we look at what economic impact smoking has had on our state, it’s $4.3 billion, according to the Centers for Disease Control,” said Cindy Erickson, spokeswoman for the Committee for a Healthy Future, the Missouri-based group that proposed the tax increase. “If we were to reduce (smoking) we would be able to spend those revenues elsewhere.”
Tobacco retailers, though, say that any smoking declines will be hard to measure because it’s likely sales will be lost to the Internet.
In 2001, the national research group Forrester Research predicted that by 2005, 14 percent of all tobacco sales would be made over the Internet, resulting in a loss of $1.4 billion in state profits.
“When prices increase significantly there is a small portion of people who will turn to Internet,” Ribisl said. “But generally you’ll see 90 to 95 percent of people will still continue to buy cigarettes at local stores.”
Mutrux said that because her business depends on cigarette sales, she can only hope the proposed tobacco tax increase wouldn’t affect her business. But as a nonsmoker, she said she also wants to see others stop smoking.
“I encourage that,” Mutrux said. “But people are going to smoke regardless.”
]]>Smokers have less than a year left to light up in Anchorage bars and bingo halls.
The Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday night voted to ban smoking in those places -- and in homes where a baby sitter is working -- in a long-debated, long-awaited decision Tuesday night.
The indoor-smoking ban, which goes into effect next summer, passed 8-3, with Debbie Ossiander, Dan Sullivan and Anna Fairclough voting against it.
"What we've tried to address is smoking in enclosed areas where there are employees," said Dan Coffey, one of the original sponsors of the law.
Ossiander, the Assembly's vice chairwoman and a registered respiratory therapist, said, "I'm very aware of the health impacts of smoke and what it can do to you." But, she said, she believes in individual responsibilities and freedom.
"I believe that we are overreaching in government regulations into people's lives," she said.
During the debate Tuesday night, Ossiander at one point rattled off a long list of high risk jobs, like commercial fishing, or jobs where employees are exposed to toxins, like dry cleaners.
"I don't believe government can make every job completely safe," she said.
Allan Tesche, in his first Assembly meeting since emergency heart surgery in May, said it was cynical to say the Assembly can't make all work places safer.
"If we pass this ordinance, we are going to make work places safer," Tesche said just before the final vote. "That we can't do a perfect job is no excuse."
Tesche, countering the argument for personal freedom that was raised often during discussion, said no constitution guarantees the right to smoke.
Smoking has been against the law in most public buildings, such as restaurants, offices and government offices, in Anchorage since 2001. The new law, which Coffey and Dick Traini introduced in May, aimed to outlaw smoking in some of the only public places smokers have left, with the intention of eliminating unwanted exposure to secondhand smoke.
Sullivan, the Assembly's chairman, said that six years ago the panel decided to exempt from the no-smoking rules places where adults go, and adults should be able to make the decision.
"Now we've decided that adults can't make their own choices," he said. There are also more places now where nonsmokers can find a job, he said.
The proposal drew crowds to Assembly meetings more than once. Hours of often passionate testimony pounded on persistent themes: Those fighting the ban said it was a government intrusion into personal freedoms and that it would kill bars and businesses that allow smokers. Those supporting it said secondhand smoke is unhealthy and employees of bars and businesses are unwillingly putting their lives in danger. And, supporters said, smoking bans elsewhere haven't dampened the bar business.
By postponing the start date until July 1, 2007, Traini and Coffey said they picked up the support of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
Coffey said it was crucial to apply the no-smoking rule to all applicable businesses, offering no exemptions, so nonsmoking establishments wouldn't lose money to the smoking ones.
Restrictions already ban smoking in licensed day-care centers. Now the smoking ban extends to a less-formal baby-sitter arrangement in someone's home, so long as a sitter is getting paid, even if the care is for just one child.
Ossiander tried to delete the baby-sitter provision, with vocal support from Paul Bauer. They said it would be impossible to enforce and it's up to a parent to decide not to put their child in a smoker's care. Ossiander's amendment failed.
"What level of secondhand smoke is acceptable for children?" Traini said. "None."
The new law prohibits smoking within five feet of an entrance to a bar. Smoking would be allowed in the outdoor area of a bar, such as a patio or a deck, as long as it's done at least five feet from the door.
It bans smoking within 20 feet of city and school buildings and 50 feet of hospitals. It bans smoking within 20 feet of any place of employment, so smoke doesn't enter the building through a ventilation system or window.
Smoking in private clubs is only OK if the club is not licensed to sell alcohol, is not open to the public and is not a place of employment.
Fairclough tried unsuccessfully to exempt veterans and military clubs from the ban.
Fairclough also tried unsuccessfully to exempt bingo halls, provided the hall has an enclosed place with an extra ventilation system.
The list of exemption can go on and on, Coffey said. But he and others said they were adamant about providing a level playing field among businesses.
Tesche said employees of bingo halls are no different than employees elsewhere who are under the protection of the secondhand smoke law.
Tesche's life-threatening experience this spring didn't appear to take away his argumentative tendency, although he didn't speak as much as he has in previous meetings.
"This government will not let people die on their own when we can take a simple regulatory measure and say you can't smoke indoors, take it outside," Tesche said. "That is exactly what government should be doing."
"Welcome back, Mr. Tesche," Sullivan said.
]]>Smokers have less than a year left to light up in Anchorage bars and bingo halls.
The Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday night voted to ban smoking in those places -- and in homes where a baby sitter is working -- in a long-debated, long-awaited decision Tuesday night.
The indoor-smoking ban, which goes into effect next summer, passed 8-3, with Debbie Ossiander, Dan Sullivan and Anna Fairclough voting against it.
"What we've tried to address is smoking in enclosed areas where there are employees," said Dan Coffey, one of the original sponsors of the law.
Ossiander, the Assembly's vice chairwoman and a registered respiratory therapist, said, "I'm very aware of the health impacts of smoke and what it can do to you." But, she said, she believes in individual responsibilities and freedom.
"I believe that we are overreaching in government regulations into people's lives," she said.
During the debate Tuesday night, Ossiander at one point rattled off a long list of high risk jobs, like commercial fishing, or jobs where employees are exposed to toxins, like dry cleaners.
"I don't believe government can make every job completely safe," she said.
Allan Tesche, in his first Assembly meeting since emergency heart surgery in May, said it was cynical to say the Assembly can't make all work places safer.
"If we pass this ordinance, we are going to make work places safer," Tesche said just before the final vote. "That we can't do a perfect job is no excuse."
Tesche, countering the argument for personal freedom that was raised often during discussion, said no constitution guarantees the right to smoke.
Smoking has been against the law in most public buildings, such as restaurants, offices and government offices, in Anchorage since 2001. The new law, which Coffey and Dick Traini introduced in May, aimed to outlaw smoking in some of the only public places smokers have left, with the intention of eliminating unwanted exposure to secondhand smoke.
Sullivan, the Assembly's chairman, said that six years ago the panel decided to exempt from the no-smoking rules places where adults go, and adults should be able to make the decision.
"Now we've decided that adults can't make their own choices," he said. There are also more places now where nonsmokers can find a job, he said.
The proposal drew crowds to Assembly meetings more than once. Hours of often passionate testimony pounded on persistent themes: Those fighting the ban said it was a government intrusion into personal freedoms and that it would kill bars and businesses that allow smokers. Those supporting it said secondhand smoke is unhealthy and employees of bars and businesses are unwillingly putting their lives in danger. And, supporters said, smoking bans elsewhere haven't dampened the bar business.
By postponing the start date until July 1, 2007, Traini and Coffey said they picked up the support of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
Coffey said it was crucial to apply the no-smoking rule to all applicable businesses, offering no exemptions, so nonsmoking establishments wouldn't lose money to the smoking ones.
Restrictions already ban smoking in licensed day-care centers. Now the smoking ban extends to a less-formal baby-sitter arrangement in someone's home, so long as a sitter is getting paid, even if the care is for just one child.
Ossiander tried to delete the baby-sitter provision, with vocal support from Paul Bauer. They said it would be impossible to enforce and it's up to a parent to decide not to put their child in a smoker's care. Ossiander's amendment failed.
"What level of secondhand smoke is acceptable for children?" Traini said. "None."
The new law prohibits smoking within five feet of an entrance to a bar. Smoking would be allowed in the outdoor area of a bar, such as a patio or a deck, as long as it's done at least five feet from the door.
It bans smoking within 20 feet of city and school buildings and 50 feet of hospitals. It bans smoking within 20 feet of any place of employment, so smoke doesn't enter the building through a ventilation system or window.
Smoking in private clubs is only OK if the club is not licensed to sell alcohol, is not open to the public and is not a place of employment.
Fairclough tried unsuccessfully to exempt veterans and military clubs from the ban.
Fairclough also tried unsuccessfully to exempt bingo halls, provided the hall has an enclosed place with an extra ventilation system.
The list of exemption can go on and on, Coffey said. But he and others said they were adamant about providing a level playing field among businesses.
Tesche said employees of bingo halls are no different than employees elsewhere who are under the protection of the secondhand smoke law.
Tesche's life-threatening experience this spring didn't appear to take away his argumentative tendency, although he didn't speak as much as he has in previous meetings.
"This government will not let people die on their own when we can take a simple regulatory measure and say you can't smoke indoors, take it outside," Tesche said. "That is exactly what government should be doing."
"Welcome back, Mr. Tesche," Sullivan said.
]]>Smokers have less than a year left to light up in Anchorage bars and bingo halls.
The Anchorage Assembly on Tuesday night voted to ban smoking in those places -- and in homes where a baby sitter is working -- in a long-debated, long-awaited decision Tuesday night.
The indoor-smoking ban, which goes into effect next summer, passed 8-3, with Debbie Ossiander, Dan Sullivan and Anna Fairclough voting against it.
"What we've tried to address is smoking in enclosed areas where there are employees," said Dan Coffey, one of the original sponsors of the law.
Ossiander, the Assembly's vice chairwoman and a registered respiratory therapist, said, "I'm very aware of the health impacts of smoke and what it can do to you." But, she said, she believes in individual responsibilities and freedom.
"I believe that we are overreaching in government regulations into people's lives," she said.
During the debate Tuesday night, Ossiander at one point rattled off a long list of high risk jobs, like commercial fishing, or jobs where employees are exposed to toxins, like dry cleaners.
"I don't believe government can make every job completely safe," she said.
Allan Tesche, in his first Assembly meeting since emergency heart surgery in May, said it was cynical to say the Assembly can't make all work places safer.
"If we pass this ordinance, we are going to make work places safer," Tesche said just before the final vote. "That we can't do a perfect job is no excuse."
Tesche, countering the argument for personal freedom that was raised often during discussion, said no constitution guarantees the right to smoke.
Smoking has been against the law in most public buildings, such as restaurants, offices and government offices, in Anchorage since 2001. The new law, which Coffey and Dick Traini introduced in May, aimed to outlaw smoking in some of the only public places smokers have left, with the intention of eliminating unwanted exposure to secondhand smoke.
Sullivan, the Assembly's chairman, said that six years ago the panel decided to exempt from the no-smoking rules places where adults go, and adults should be able to make the decision.
"Now we've decided that adults can't make their own choices," he said. There are also more places now where nonsmokers can find a job, he said.
The proposal drew crowds to Assembly meetings more than once. Hours of often passionate testimony pounded on persistent themes: Those fighting the ban said it was a government intrusion into personal freedoms and that it would kill bars and businesses that allow smokers. Those supporting it said secondhand smoke is unhealthy and employees of bars and businesses are unwillingly putting their lives in danger. And, supporters said, smoking bans elsewhere haven't dampened the bar business.
By postponing the start date until July 1, 2007, Traini and Coffey said they picked up the support of the Anchorage Chamber of Commerce.
Coffey said it was crucial to apply the no-smoking rule to all applicable businesses, offering no exemptions, so nonsmoking establishments wouldn't lose money to the smoking ones.
Restrictions already ban smoking in licensed day-care centers. Now the smoking ban extends to a less-formal baby-sitter arrangement in someone's home, so long as a sitter is getting paid, even if the care is for just one child.
Ossiander tried to delete the baby-sitter provision, with vocal support from Paul Bauer. They said it would be impossible to enforce and it's up to a parent to decide not to put their child in a smoker's care. Ossiander's amendment failed.
"What level of secondhand smoke is acceptable for children?" Traini said. "None."
The new law prohibits smoking within five feet of an entrance to a bar. Smoking would be allowed in the outdoor area of a bar, such as a patio or a deck, as long as it's done at least five feet from the door.
It bans smoking within 20 feet of city and school buildings and 50 feet of hospitals. It bans smoking within 20 feet of any place of employment, so smoke doesn't enter the building through a ventilation system or window.
Smoking in private clubs is only OK if the club is not licensed to sell alcohol, is not open to the public and is not a place of employment.
Fairclough tried unsuccessfully to exempt veterans and military clubs from the ban.
Fairclough also tried unsuccessfully to exempt bingo halls, provided the hall has an enclosed place with an extra ventilation system.
The list of exemption can go on and on, Coffey said. But he and others said they were adamant about providing a level playing field among businesses.
Tesche said employees of bingo halls are no different than employees elsewhere who are under the protection of the secondhand smoke law.
Tesche's life-threatening experience this spring didn't appear to take away his argumentative tendency, although he didn't speak as much as he has in previous meetings.
"This government will not let people die on their own when we can take a simple regulatory measure and say you can't smoke indoors, take it outside," Tesche said. "That is exactly what government should be doing."
"Welcome back, Mr. Tesche," Sullivan said.
]]>Perhaps there was nothing nefarious about the unusually quiet departure of Richard Carmona as U.S. surgeon general. With the ultra-secretive and business-friendly Bush Administration, personnel changes don't always go down as advertised.
Depending on which explanation you believe, Dr. Carmona either resigned as head of the federal Public Health Service or he was not reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expired on July 29 - the equivalent of being fired.
Some sources indicated that Dr. Carmona was told that he would not be retained as surgeon general, but who ushered him out and the reason were not revealed by the hunker-in-the-bunker folks at the White House.
In any case, Dr. Carmona merits praise for at least one major health initiative: The recent report that labeled secondhand tobacco smoke for what it indisputably is - a deadly health hazard to millions of Americans.
The surgeon general's report validated the need for a comprehensive statewide ban on smoking in public places, which we support and which Ohio voters are expected to decide in the Nov. 7 election.
As Dr. Carmona put it back in June, "I am grateful … to be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults."
The declaration demolished the central claim of the special interests that oppose a smoking ban: that secondhand smoke is not hazardous to those forced to breathe it, whether as patrons or workers in public places.
Did Dr. Carmona's bold stand get him fired?
We wouldn't be surprised. After all, the business interests hard at work against a real smoking ban in Ohio are the same businesses routinely found on President Bush's list of influential campaign contributors.
They include owners of bars, restaurants, hotels, and bowling centers in the so-called hospitality industry as well as those that profit from tobacco sales, including the tobacco industry, grocers, liquor, beer, and wine wholesalers, and the oil industry.
This is the group that is promoting a misleading ballot issue with a disingenuous name: Smoke Less Ohio. It's a constitutional amendment which, if it makes the Nov. 7 ballot and is approved by voters, not only would not protect anyone but would institutionalize the presence of secondhand smoke in the lives of Ohioans by forever prohibiting a whole range of anti-smoking laws.
The genuine smoking issue headed for the ballot is an initiative law sponsored by SmokeFreeOhio, a public health coalition. It would institute a fair and uniform smoking ban in public places across the state.
In the meantime, Dr. Carmona is back in Tucson, pondering his future. The former trauma surgeon hasn't confirmed whether he was fired, but he did tell his hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star, that he often felt frustrated in the federal post, especially "when science gave way to politics … What was done was not always my decision."
Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, Dr. Carmona managed what few appointees of this laissez-faire administration have even attempted - to advance the cause of legitimate public health protection for the American people.
For that, he deserves credit.
]]>Perhaps there was nothing nefarious about the unusually quiet departure of Richard Carmona as U.S. surgeon general. With the ultra-secretive and business-friendly Bush Administration, personnel changes don't always go down as advertised.
Depending on which explanation you believe, Dr. Carmona either resigned as head of the federal Public Health Service or he was not reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expired on July 29 - the equivalent of being fired.
Some sources indicated that Dr. Carmona was told that he would not be retained as surgeon general, but who ushered him out and the reason were not revealed by the hunker-in-the-bunker folks at the White House.
In any case, Dr. Carmona merits praise for at least one major health initiative: The recent report that labeled secondhand tobacco smoke for what it indisputably is - a deadly health hazard to millions of Americans.
The surgeon general's report validated the need for a comprehensive statewide ban on smoking in public places, which we support and which Ohio voters are expected to decide in the Nov. 7 election.
As Dr. Carmona put it back in June, "I am grateful … to be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults."
The declaration demolished the central claim of the special interests that oppose a smoking ban: that secondhand smoke is not hazardous to those forced to breathe it, whether as patrons or workers in public places.
Did Dr. Carmona's bold stand get him fired?
We wouldn't be surprised. After all, the business interests hard at work against a real smoking ban in Ohio are the same businesses routinely found on President Bush's list of influential campaign contributors.
They include owners of bars, restaurants, hotels, and bowling centers in the so-called hospitality industry as well as those that profit from tobacco sales, including the tobacco industry, grocers, liquor, beer, and wine wholesalers, and the oil industry.
This is the group that is promoting a misleading ballot issue with a disingenuous name: Smoke Less Ohio. It's a constitutional amendment which, if it makes the Nov. 7 ballot and is approved by voters, not only would not protect anyone but would institutionalize the presence of secondhand smoke in the lives of Ohioans by forever prohibiting a whole range of anti-smoking laws.
The genuine smoking issue headed for the ballot is an initiative law sponsored by SmokeFreeOhio, a public health coalition. It would institute a fair and uniform smoking ban in public places across the state.
In the meantime, Dr. Carmona is back in Tucson, pondering his future. The former trauma surgeon hasn't confirmed whether he was fired, but he did tell his hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star, that he often felt frustrated in the federal post, especially "when science gave way to politics … What was done was not always my decision."
Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, Dr. Carmona managed what few appointees of this laissez-faire administration have even attempted - to advance the cause of legitimate public health protection for the American people.
For that, he deserves credit.
]]>Perhaps there was nothing nefarious about the unusually quiet departure of Richard Carmona as U.S. surgeon general. With the ultra-secretive and business-friendly Bush Administration, personnel changes don't always go down as advertised.
Depending on which explanation you believe, Dr. Carmona either resigned as head of the federal Public Health Service or he was not reappointed by President Bush when his four-year term expired on July 29 - the equivalent of being fired.
Some sources indicated that Dr. Carmona was told that he would not be retained as surgeon general, but who ushered him out and the reason were not revealed by the hunker-in-the-bunker folks at the White House.
In any case, Dr. Carmona merits praise for at least one major health initiative: The recent report that labeled secondhand tobacco smoke for what it indisputably is - a deadly health hazard to millions of Americans.
The surgeon general's report validated the need for a comprehensive statewide ban on smoking in public places, which we support and which Ohio voters are expected to decide in the Nov. 7 election.
As Dr. Carmona put it back in June, "I am grateful … to be able to say unequivocally that the debate is over. The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults."
The declaration demolished the central claim of the special interests that oppose a smoking ban: that secondhand smoke is not hazardous to those forced to breathe it, whether as patrons or workers in public places.
Did Dr. Carmona's bold stand get him fired?
We wouldn't be surprised. After all, the business interests hard at work against a real smoking ban in Ohio are the same businesses routinely found on President Bush's list of influential campaign contributors.
They include owners of bars, restaurants, hotels, and bowling centers in the so-called hospitality industry as well as those that profit from tobacco sales, including the tobacco industry, grocers, liquor, beer, and wine wholesalers, and the oil industry.
This is the group that is promoting a misleading ballot issue with a disingenuous name: Smoke Less Ohio. It's a constitutional amendment which, if it makes the Nov. 7 ballot and is approved by voters, not only would not protect anyone but would institutionalize the presence of secondhand smoke in the lives of Ohioans by forever prohibiting a whole range of anti-smoking laws.
The genuine smoking issue headed for the ballot is an initiative law sponsored by SmokeFreeOhio, a public health coalition. It would institute a fair and uniform smoking ban in public places across the state.
In the meantime, Dr. Carmona is back in Tucson, pondering his future. The former trauma surgeon hasn't confirmed whether he was fired, but he did tell his hometown paper, the Arizona Daily Star, that he often felt frustrated in the federal post, especially "when science gave way to politics … What was done was not always my decision."
Regardless of the circumstances of his departure, Dr. Carmona managed what few appointees of this laissez-faire administration have even attempted - to advance the cause of legitimate public health protection for the American people.
For that, he deserves credit.
]]>Quebec smokers are being left out in the cold, literally, by a recent provincewide ban on smoking in enclosed public places.
Not only has the new law, which came into effect May 31, forced bar and restaurant patrons outside for a cigarette, it seems some smokers are also having a hard time finding a place to live.
"There are more cases this year of people telling us they've been refused an apartment because they smoke," said Francois Saillant, head of Front d'action populaire en reamenagement urbain, a prominent local tenants' rights group.
Quebec's landlord association says some of its members have suddenly become interested in inserting no-smoking clauses into their leases.
"I think it's a result of the publicity surrounding the law preventing smoking in restaurants," said Martin Messier, president of the association.
"People are more concerned now about being in a non-smoking environment."
Messier says his association advises its members not to refuse smokers outright, but rather inform them they'll have to puff outside their apartment.
But Saillant claims landlords are taking advantage of the new law to give themselves more power in choosing their tenants.
"It's another restriction that for me is completely not justified," he said, noting especially that Montreal has low vacancy rates.
Bill 112, which was passed in concert with similar anti-smoking legislation in Ontario, forbids smokers from lighting up in bars and restaurants.
The sweeping restrictions also extend to the nine metres in front of any doorway leading to a health or social services institution, college, university or child-care facility.
Saillant believes landlords who discriminate against smokers are setting a disturbing precedent in their interpretation of the law and need to differentiate between public and private spaces.
"It's an extremely dangerous thing to get involved with, because now, quite clearly, we're messing with the private lives of people," he said. "That's not the business of the landlord."
Saillant even raised the possibility of smoking tenants using human rights arguments to challenge the decisions of their landlord.
According to the Quebec government, however, there is nothing in the new legislation that prevents landlords from inserting anti-smoking clauses into their leases.
Messier, for his part, maintains that only a relatively small percentage of landlords have so far insisted on smoke-free dwellings.
He adds that if prospective renters don't like it, they can always find somewhere else to live.
"It's not an intrusion into people's private lives," he said. "It's simply a condition that's prerequisite to the signing of the lease."
Mike Callaghan, who owns an apartment building in the southwest Montreal neighbourhood of St-Henri, admits it's often in the landlord's interests to weed out smokers.
"I would prefer (non-smokers) because it's definitely harder on an apartment when you get, especially, a heavy smoker," he said. "The walls can really take a beating."
But smoking alone isn't enough for Callaghan to turn a potential tenant away.
"I'm more concerned about the person themselves," he said. "Smoking, that's like a little side factor."
Given the wide-ranging nature of Quebec's new smoking bans, even Saillant - himself a lifelong non-smoker - believes smokers deserve a break.
"In an apartment people have their intimacy, it's their private life, and in a way it's the only refuge they have."
]]>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.
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.
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.
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.”
]]>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.”
]]>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.”
]]>