Tobacco.org

• Pricey fight over ban expected 

Backers of a statewide smoking ban say they expect to be outspent by opponents in what's expected to be a hard-fought campaign after deciding Thursday not to appeal a judge's ruling. The decision makes the prospect of a November vote more likely.

However, Attorney General Marty Jackley says he and Secretary of State Chris Nelson will meet today to discuss a possible appeal. A decision is likely within a week.

Jackley said the American Cancer Society's decision not to appeal "is certainly a consideration" as he and Nelson decide the state's course. . . .

If, as Don Rose suggests, the state follows the cancer society's lead and decides not to appeal, the 2010 referendum will follow. Opponents of the ban such as Rose say this is what they've wanted all along. Rose owns Shenanigan's Pub, is a district director of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota and was a key organizer of the referendum petition drive that ended up before Trandahl after the Cancer Society challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.

"A vote of the people is what they should have done in the first place," Rose said.

"Our deal was we always wanted to be able to let the people vote," added Mark O'Neill, president of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota.

Jump to full article »

• The science behind moving smoking bans outside  

Reflecting on the existing scientific research on second hand smoke exposure outdoors, William Saletan of Slate.com sifts through the most relevant points from two major studies on the subject (the 2006 California Air Resources Board study, and a 2007 study from Stanford). Among the findings: outdoors, second hand smoke levels vary widely and quickly, depend on the individual's distance from a smoker (farther than 6.5 feet or 2 meters, generally reduces exposure to "background" levels), are influenced by how confined the outdoor space is (if there are walls or fences), and the concentration of smokers in a given area. The data, Saletan concludes, point to the need for a measured approach for crafting policy to reduce second hand smoke exposure outdoors. He writes:

"If you want to argue for parkwide smoking bans based on asthma or on an analogy to noise pollution, go ahead and make that case. But let's not cloud that debate by invoking the general harm of secondhand smoke. Studies of secondhand smoke have indeed moved outdoors. Their findings support restrictions on lighting up within a few feet of other people. But they don't warrant more than that."

A new study published in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene may contribute to the debate. Researchers from the University of Georgia measured second hand smoke exposure among people sitting in the outdoor areas of bars and restaurants where indoor smoking was banned in the city of Athens, Georgia. . . .

generally speaking, hanging out in an outdoor smoking area exposes you to less second hand smoke than being in an indoor, confined space with smokers, and the more space you have between yourself and smokers, the lower levels of exposure you will have. So, this particular study doesn't ring the death knell for outdoor smoking. But, the researchers point out, wielding the official trump card of the public health argument:

Although the increment in cotinine concentrations and, thus, the [second hand smoke] exposure levels were relatively low at the sites of interest, the current view is that there is no level of personal exposure to [second hand smoke] that can be regarded as safe. This study demonstrates the ongoing exposure of nonsmokers to [second hand smoke] outside restaurants and bars, and the limitations of indoor smoking bans alone in protecting the public from exposure to [second hand smoke] outside these establishments.

In other words, the movement to ban smoking in outdoor spaces is here to stay.

Jump to full article »

• Study raises concerns about outdoor second-hand smoke 

Indoor smoking bans have forced smokers at bars and restaurants onto outdoor patios, but a new University of Georgia study in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggests that these outdoor smoking areas might be creating a new health hazard.

The study, thought to be the first to assess levels of a nicotine byproduct known as cotinine in nonsmokers exposed to second-hand smoke outdoors, found levels up to 162 percent greater than in the control group. The results appear in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene.

"Indoor smoking bans have helped to create more of these outdoor environments where people are exposed to secondhand smoke," said study co-author Luke Naeher, associate professor in the UGA College of Public Health. "We know from our previous study that there are measurable airborne levels of secondhand smoke in these environments, and we know from this study that we can measure internal exposure.

"Secondhand smoke contains several known carcinogens and the current thinking is that there is no safe level of exposure," he added. "So the levels that we are seeing are a potential public health issue."

Athens-Clarke County, Ga., enacted an indoor smoking ban in 2005, providing Naeher and his colleagues and ideal environment for their study.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban battle hits courtroom 

Whether the state took an improper route to nab the admitted smoking ban violator is just one of several arguments Des Moines County District Court Judge Mary Ann Brown will consider before ruling whether the smoking ban violates the U.S. and Iowa constitutions.

Though the hearing lasted just two hours Tuesday morning, with the arguments largely made up of the written briefs the attorneys previously submitted to the judge, the owner of Otis Campbell's Bar and Grill said he'd take what he could get.

"I'm grateful that it got this far now," Duncan said after the trial. "I believe in the system."

Brown asked few questions during the hearing but thanked the attorneys at the end of their arguments. She did not offer a time frame for making a decision but said it will be "as quickly as we can."

Jump to full article »

• Lights out! Smoking ban nears  

Starting in January, if you want to smoke a cigarette during a night on the town at any of Macon's eating and drinking establishments, you will have to drag your butts outside.

The state's smoking ban in bars and restaurants will go into effect on Jan. 2, 2010.

Becky Barr, health education program supervisor and environmental health supervisor Barry Patterson with the Macon County Public Health Center explained the new rules and how they will be enforced at the health board's Nov. 10 meeting.

Barr said one of the goals as they get closer to the enactment date of "North Carolina's Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law" (House Bill 2) is to educate restaurant owners and the public about the legislation.

The gist of the law, which passed in May, is that all North Carolina restaurants and bars permitted to serve food and beverages must be smoke free come Jan. 2.

Jump to full article »

• Smoke at home  

SMOKERS will only able to enjoy their cigarettes in the comfort of their own home.

This according to Minister of Health Jerry Narace during a press briefing to update the public about the amendment to the 2009 Tobacco Bill at the Ministry's Park Street head office in Port of Spain yesterday.

'People can smoke in their private residences if they wish to, except when the house is used for the purposes of manufacturing, distribution, or trade,' he said.

It will, however, still be an offence for any person to smoke or hold a lighted tobacco product in any enclosed public place such as public transportation terminals, workplaces, bars, restaurants, shopping malls, clubs, cinemas, and sports facilities or any enclosed workplace.

Jump to full article »

• Antismoking Fight Proves a Pyramid-Size Task  

Anyone who has ever spent any time in a Cairo taxicab, restaurant, office, lobby, coffeehouse, cafeteria or university, or even at the zoo, knows just how ubiquitous smoking is. "There is a movement to be tobacco free in the whole world," said Ehab Assad, a tobacco control officer in the Egyptian Ministry of Health. "We cannot be away from this."

Mr. Assad said that as a first step the government late last month banned the shisha, or water pipe, in cafes of the crowded Khan el-Khalili marketplace. But just a few minutes after the government boasted of the ban, hawkers were swarming tourists at the Khan, waving restaurant menus, offering what else but shisha. They were selling apple-, orange-, lemon- and cherry-flavored, tobacco-filled pipes for 10 Egyptian pounds, or about $1.80.

Such is the early fate of the antismoking effort. Shisha is back in the Khan after a brief ban, and all around Cairo there is confusion as to what exactly the government is planning. "The End of Shisha?" read a headline last month on the news Web site Al Masry al Youm. So far, smoking continues unabated. . . .

"The main issue here is that we don't have democracy. Accordingly, our responsible ministers are not elected; accordingly, they don't really care about what they do to their own people," said Alaa al-Aswany, a best-selling author and social critic.

"I am telling you that the shisha will continue," he said.

Jump to full article »

• Pub ban stubs out smoking at home  

A ban on smoking in bars and pubs has prompted many New Zealanders to stop smoking at home, Ministry of Health research shows.

Next month will mark six years since the passing of smoke-free legislation that bans smoking in indoor work environments such as clubs, casinos, bars and restaurants. It came into force one year later, in December 2004.

A ministry expert on tobacco, Dr Ashley Bloomfield, says one of the positive spin-offs of the law has been that the number of smoke-free homes has dramatically increased. He attributes the trend to a change in attitude - "People started thinking, `I can't smoke in the pub so I won't smoke in my home'."

A report evaluating the law's effectiveness and impact across various sectors shows exposure to second-hand smoke in the home decreased from 20% in 2003 to 9% in 2006. And the cultural shift, which has seen smoking become less socially acceptable, has seen smoking rates fall year on year.

The research, he says, also shows "the overall economic impact [of the legislation] was not a negative one".

But Josh White of the Hospitality Association of New Zealand says there is no doubt the law has had a negative impact on licensed premises. "Everyone that's tried to survive has had to put a smoking area in at their own cost."

Jump to full article »

• Challenge fires up smoking-ban debate again 

Opponents of Ohio's indoor-smoking ban said yesterday that they have uncovered evidence of "massive" voter fraud on the part of ban proponents, more than three years after voters approved the curbs on smoking.

The group, Opponents of Ohio Bans, said the petition that placed the smoking ban on the 2006 statewide ballot was tainted by numerous irregularities, such as 47 felons gathering signatures and signature-gatherers in 77 counties wrongly listing the American Cancer Society as their employer.

The new allegations mirror claims raised during the 2006 campaign. However, opponents of the ban say there's now even stronger evidence of wrongdoing.

"What we found is astonishing," said Pam Parker, co-owner of Parker's Tavern in Grove City and co-chairwoman of Opponents of Ohio Bans. "There are petitions that never should have been validated."

Parker spoke yesterday at a news conference with Pat Carroll, president of the Buckeye State Liquor Permit Holders Association.

Even if the bar owners persuade authorities to investigate their allegations, and even if the authorities find merit in their claims, there's no clear path to overturn the smoking ban.

Nearly 59 percent of voters approved the ban in 2006. Officials in Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's office said there's no precedent to invalidate a law passed by voters on the basis of problems in the petition process. In fact, Ohio law makes that impossible.

Jump to full article »

• Bar owners seek to overturn smoking ban  

A group of bar owners is fired up over Ohio's 3-year-old smoking ban.

Bar owners and employees met in Grove City on Friday claiming there weren't enough signatures for the ban to appear on the ballot in 2006.

They also say 46 convicted felons were allowed to collect signatures for the petitions -- something not allowed under state law.

The ban prohibits smoking in most public places in Ohio, including bars and restaurants.

Members of the Buckeye Liquor Permit Holders Association want the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the claims. They want family-owned businesses and private clubs to be exempt from the ban.

The group also is threatening a class action lawsuit for the hundreds of bars they claim went out of business because of the ban.

"We're losing money in our businesses because this never should have gone to a vote and it went to a vote anyway," said Pam Parker of Parker's Tavern in Grove City.

Jump to full article »

• STATE: Smoking ban can go to vote, judge rules  

South Dakota's new smoking ban will remain on hold until voters decide its fate next November.

That's where the issue stands for now after Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl ruled Friday afternoon there are sufficient valid signatures on petitions to refer the ban to a statewide vote next year.

After a two-day trial, Trandahl restored a net total of 2,261 signatures which Secretary of State Chris Nelson previously ruled were invalid. Before that, the petitions had stood 17 signatures short of the 16,776 minimum needed to make the ballot.

Her decision remains subject to a possible appeal to the South Dakota Supreme Court by Nelson or the American Cancer Society, which lobbied for the law and intervened in the lawsuit.

Nelson and a cancer society official each said no decision has been made yet regarding an appeal.

The judge said Nelson properly did his job in reviewing the signatures. She said state law gives the secretary of state “no discretion” regarding validity of signatures.

Jump to full article »

• Voters Will Decide On Smoking Ban 

A judge has ruled that a law which would ban smoking in South Dakota bars and casinos will go to a public vote in November 2010.

Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl made her ruling shortly after closing arguments wrapped up Friday afternoon.

Jump to full article »

• Notary Questioned About Seal In Smoking Ban Trial 

South Dakota's smoking ban faces one burning question. Did the notaries who verified the petitions do enough to make them official?

A two-day trial started Thursday in Pierre. The opponents of the ban are only 18 signatures short of getting the issue on the ballot.

Several notaries took the witness stand Thursday and were questioned about how they signed and dated the petitions and if they did it legally.

Linda Wegman was one of the notaries questioned and always thought she had her 'I's' dotted and 'T's' crossed when it came to notarizing documents.

"It's hard to remember the date so I had my date printed right on it, thought I had all my bases covered," Wegman said.

Jump to full article »

• SD Smoking Ban Eligible To Be Referred  

A judge ruled Thursday that South Dakota's smoking ban is legally eligible to be referred to a statewide public vote.

The decision by Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl of Winner means she will hear detailed arguments on whether thousands of petition signatures calling for the referendum are valid.

The American Cancer Society argued that the new law, which would ban smoking in bars and casinos, could not be referred because it is needed for the immediate preservation of public health.

But Trandahl said the Legislature didn't declare the ban an emergency, so it is eligible to be referred.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban is re-examined 

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

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

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

Xenogiannakopoulou said she wants to address such problems.

Jump to full article »