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 »

• American Cancer Society Won't Appeal Smoking Ban Ruling 

American Cancer Society South Dakota Government Relations Director Jennifer Stalley says, “It is appropriate that today, on the 34th annual American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out—a day dedicated to helping smokers quit—the American Cancer Society, along with more than fifty diverse public health, business and medical groups, will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."

“We are confident that the vast majority of South Dakotans support this law and that by this time next year –the 35th annual Great American Smoke Out—South Dakota will be a smoke free state.”

Jump to full article »

• Cancer Society says it won't appeal smoking ban appeal decision 

Officials for the American Cancer Society in South Dakota say they won't appeal a court decision that will now send a smoking ban in South Dakota bars, restaurants, casinos and other businesses to the vote of the people in 2010.

The announcement by the Society's government relations director Jennifer Stally came on the 34th annaul American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out Day. Stalley said in a news release that the Cancer Society "will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."

Jump to full article »

• Calif. group pushes for $1 tobacco tax increase for cancer research 

Smokers in California will have to dig much deeper into their pockets to buy a pack of cigarettes next year if a proposed ballot measure passes.

The Californians for a Cure plan is aimed at raising millions of dollars for cancer research, smoking prevention programs and to help bankroll anti-tobacco smuggling efforts. The measure is backed by, among others, cancer research and health advocates.

Their plan calls for a buck increase in the state's excise tax on tobacco, to $1.87 per pack. The money raised would flow into a trust fund. Sixty-cents of the dollar raised from a pack of smokes would to go to fund research on cancer and other smoking-related illnesses.

Under the plan, 20 cents would go to fund smoking cessation and tobacco use prevention programs, 15 cents would go to help fund research facilities, while three pennies would go to fund tobacco smuggling enforcement.

The plan calls for about two percent of the revenue to go for administrative costs.

How the money would be spent would be overseen by a nine-member oversight committee.

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 »

• 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 »

• 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 »

• Falmouth voters OK ban on beach smoking  

Voters at last night's town meeting gave a big thumbs down to those who like to light up on the town's public beaches.

Smoking is no longer allowed on any of the town's 11 public beaches, following a 128-60 vote that makes Falmouth the third community on the Cape to snuff out smoking on municipal beaches. Proponents of the ban cited litter in the form of errant cigarette butts in the sand, as well as the harm caused by secondhand smoke, as the main reasons to pass the smoking ban warrant item. . . .

In the end, a majority of town meeting voters said they were tired of "inconsiderate" people on the beach who refuse to move even after complaints and throw cigarette filters in the sand, where young children often find them while building sand castles.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking fight heads to court  

PIERRE — The main event starts Thursday morning in South Dakota’s courtroom battle over whether the expanded smoking ban passed by the Legislature earlier this year will become an election battle next year.

PIERRE — The main event starts Thursday morning in South Dakota’s courtroom battle over whether the expanded smoking ban passed by the Legislature earlier this year will become an election battle next year.

In dispute is whether the ban can be referred to a statewide vote next Nov. 2 as part of the 2010 general election.

First up Thursday are arguments before Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl about whether the law can be referred, as well as a related argument on one piece of evidence and an argument regarding notary-public information on the petitions.

Depending upon how Judge Trandahl rules on those questions, next up might be a lineby-line battle over the validity of hundreds of signatures on the referendum petitions.

The latest affidavit from Secretary of State Chris Nelson shows the petitions are 61 signatures short of the 16,776 minimum necessary to qualify for the ballot.

Jump to full article »

• SD Smoking Ban Gets Its Day In Court This Week  

South Dakotans could know the fate of the statewide smoking ban by the end of the week. Both sides of the ban will be heading to Pierre Thursday to dispute the nearly ten thousand petition signatures that were thrown out, keeping the issue off next November's ballot.

In July supporters of the smoking ban were able to get the Secretary of State to throw out nearly ten thousand names on the petition turned in by opponents of the ban. Bar and casino owners across South Dakota filed a lawsuit to challenge the decision.

Thursday is their day in court and they are prepared to call up to 20 witnesses to defend the signatures and names that were tossed.

Jump to full article »

• Lobbyists open wallets to influence Pa. budget  

- When it became clear that the state budget was in crisis mode, three industries with much at stake in Harrisburg opened their wallets.

Gambling interests, natural-gas drillers, and tobacco companies have since January spent more than $4.5 million combined on lobbying efforts, according to expense reports filed last week with the state.

Those industries were among the few winners in a budget ravaged by the recession.

Casinos are poised to introduce poker and other newly legalized table games. Natural-gas drillers and tobacco companies fought off new taxes. . . .

Republican legislative leaders defeated the proposed cigar tax, along with one proposed for smokeless products such as chewing tobacco and snuff. Left standing was a new tax on little cigars - cigarillos.

In all, tobacco interests large and small spent nearly $1.5 million on lobbying from January through Sept. 30, records show.

Reynolds American Inc., whose subsidiary Conwood Co. is the nation's second-largest producer of smokeless tobacco products, devoted the most - $670,658.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban exemptions are now the focus of criticism 

Steve Stenger, the County Council member who insisted that any ban include a casino exemption, said he expected the council to move next year to rescind it.

"With upwards of 65 percent of the people voting in favor of the ban, I think you can see the day coming to phase out that exemption," said Stenger, D-Affton. "Tuesday showed very clearly that most people do not want to be exposed to smoke in any public place."

Stenger predicted that the County Council would take action to eliminate the exemption shortly after the ban takes effect in 2011. If it chose, the council could change the ordinance on its own without submitting it to public vote again. . . .

The city and county exemptions drew attention on many fronts Wednesday.

Those who fought the bans said the casino exemption was unconstitutional, and could be used to invalidate the entire proposition.

At O'Connell's Pub off South Kingshighway, the talk was how to measure a bar's square footage so that it would be protected by the city's five-year exemption for bars under 2,000 square feet.

And in Maplewood, a restaurant owner who opposed the ban is adamantly against exemptions.

Bill Hannegan, an activist against both smoking bans, said opponents met Wednesday with lawyers to discuss ways to overturn them. . . .

And he said his group has discussed an initiative petition to address the most restrictive provisions of the city ban. His group, Keep St. Louis Free, views the city ban as more onerous than the county ban, which has the exemption for bars that make less than 25 percent of their revenue off food.

Jump to full article »

• County approves smoking ban  

St. Louis County voters on Tuesday simultaneously made most public places there and in the city smoke-free.

With light turnout -- about 20 percent of the county's 705,000 registered voters -- about two-thirds of them favored Proposition N, which, with some exemptions, bans smoking in public places on Jan. 2, 2011.

The ban applies to the city also because the Board of Aldermen last month approved a similar measure, contingent on county passage. The city ban, including exemptions, also takes effect Jan. 2, 2011.

With the statewide ban in Illinois, Tuesday's vote means that two-thirds of the St. Louis area's population will live in an area that bans smoking in public places.

Meanwhile, Kirkwood voters overwhelmingly passed a separate ban that is more strict than the county's, in that it applies to all bar-restaurants. The county's ban exempts bars that don't sell a lot of food, but does allow municipalities to enact stricter bans. The county's exceptions also include casino gaming floors and the smoking lounges at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. . . .

Voss predicted that his association would challenge the smoking ban in court. The ban, he said, "is so unfair."

Bill Hannegan, a leading opponent of smoking bans, said he and his supporters soon will consider whether to challenge the constitutionality of the exemption for casinos gaming floors. He called it "special interest" legislation.

Some Kirkwood bar and restaurant owners who fought the last smoking ban proposal there in 2006 did not wage a campaign this time.

"There was no organized opposition in Kirkwood, as far as I know," said

Jump to full article »

• Clearing the air: Voters approve smoking ban by wide margin 

Here's the good news, smokers: You've got over a year to get used to puffing outside.

Voters in St. Louis County have overwhelmingly approved a ban on smoking in restaurants and most other indoor businesses. The vote means that smoke-free legislation approved by St. Louis aldermen -- which was contingent on a similar proposal passing in the county -- will also become law.

Both the county and city prohibitions will not go into effect until January 2011.� And both measures contain plenty of exceptions.

Jump to full article »