Tobacco.org

• 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 »

• 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 »

• Tenants demand tougher anti-smoking laws 

"We shut the doors, we shut the windows, which is pretty inconvenient and not guaranteed to stop all the smoke anyway," he said.

Horelick is part of a group of residents who are calling on the City Council to expand an ordinance that bans smoking in all common areas of apartments and condominiums to also apply to balconies and patios, arguing the current regulations, while a step in the right direction, don't go far enough.

Jump to full article »

• Housing authorities ban indoor smoking 

Alan Pape doesn't like going into smokers' apartments. But as the maintenance mechanic for the North Bend City/Coos-Curry Housing Authorities, it's part of the job.

"When you have to stand in them for two or three hours at times and breathe in second-hand smoke -- I know it's not good for me," Pape said.

By March, Pape won't have to worry about nicotine-stained walls or smelling like an ash tray at the end of the day.

The two boards of commissioners for the housing authorities adopted a no-indoor-smoking policy for the apartments and buildings they own. The Woodland Apartments Preservation Inc. and Powers Housing Development Inc. -- apartments managed by the housing authorities -- also passed the same policy. The agencies provide section 8 and low-income housing North Bend, Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, Coquille and Port Orford. Woodland and Powers have units in Empire and Powers. Ned Beman, the executive director of the Housing Authorities, said the policy will likely impact 475 residents. He estimated that about 21 percent smoke.

The policy bans smokers from lighting up inside units or other buildings owned by the agencies. Those who smoke will be allowed to -- but outside at least 10 feet from a neighbor's door. It goes into effect on March 1.

Jump to full article »

• Cigarette smoke wafting onto neighbor's patio brings lawsuit 

This is the story of two neighbors and a dispute over secondhand smoke in the Sacramento suburb of El Dorado Hills.

It seems like a minor story, especially with everything that's wrong in California: . . .

In short, the state is a disaster. You'd think with all those problems that a dispute between neighbors over cigarette smoke wouldn't generate much interest but it has garnered more response in the local newspaper than anything the paper has reported in recent memory --and frankly, the Sacramento Bee has been doing a bang-up job uncovering all sorts of graft, waste and corruption in state government. Does this story resonate at the national level? Here's the deal:

A California couple has filed a lawsuit seeking relief from their next-door neighbor's second-hand cigarette smoke.

Richard and Donna Ganguet were the first to move into a gated community for people age 55 and older. That was 2006. Today, they claim the cigar and cigarette smoke wafts into their yard from the property of neighbor has caused an intolerable situation. . . .

The responses --over 600 on the newspaper's website-- are all over the board. . . .

I had a problem a few years ago with heavy smoking neighbors. No amount of pleading would get them to take their smoke somewhere other than directly into my windows.

I fixed the problem by putting an old piece of fish in a bowl, hooking up a small, quiet fan right behind it, and placing the rig right next to the fence. Worked like a charm - inside two days, the neighbors moved their smoking area away from my side and didn't come back to it.

Don't get mad, get even.

What do you think? How do you resolve this problem between two neighbors?

Jump to full article »

• El Dorado Hills couple sues neighbor over cigarette smoke  

"In a senior community, you think we'll all be compatible and have the same values," said Richard Ganguet, a retired El Dorado County sheriff's deputy.

But three years after settling into their single-family home in El Dorado Hills' Four Seasons development, the Ganguets are suing their next-door neighbor over cigar and cigarette smoke they say wafts into their backyard and house.

Because of the smoke, the couple say, they no longer sit on their patio. They also try to sandwich in swims in the side-yard lap pool between their neighbors' smoking sessions.

Doug Smith, attorney for the neighboring homeowner, Florence Solone, said the issue is a trivial one that should be resolved by neighbors talking with each other, not with a lawsuit in El Dorado Superior Court.

But disputes between neighbors over secondhand smoke are increasingly making their way into courtrooms and city council chambers.

With smoking banned in workplaces, restaurants and bars, Californians are less willing to tolerate the smell of smoke in their houses or backyards, said Robin Salsburg, a staff attorney with the Oakland-based Public Health Institute's Public Health Law and Policy program.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking ban in Ayer covers the great outdoors  

It was a recent trip to the park that finally did it.

Jason Mayo watched as a father pushed his child on a swing, cigarette clenched between his teeth. On every upswing, the child got a face full of exhaled smoke.

"We can't tell people how to parent,'' said Mayo, a member of the Ayer parks and recreation committee, which has banned smoking in the town's recreation areas. "But all the other kids around him were inhaling that cigarette too.''

As antismoking sentiment sweeps across the country, nonsmokers are taking back bars, restaurants, and workplaces, snuffing smoking out of its indoor havens. And now some of them are turning their sights on the great outdoors.

Holliston and Upton have enacted similar outdoor smoking bans. And in another example of the widespread public crackdown on smoking, Needham has outlawed the sale of cigarettes in pharmacies and Newton and Framingham are trying to do the same.

Ayer's parks and recreation committee implemented its outdoor ban in August, and the panel may also pursue a bylaw at the spring Town Meeting. In a more sweeping stroke, the town's Board of Health is pursuing a regulation that would apply the prohibition to all town-owned property and land and impose a $100 fine on offenders. The board has set a public hearing on the subject for January.

Jump to full article »

• Bill to extend smoking ban 

Senators are ready to vote on a bill that would require smokers to move more than 20 feet from the entrance of an enclosed public place before they can enjoy a cigarette.

There was little debate or objection to Bill 101 during session yesterday. The Legislature will vote on the bill the next time it is discussed.

Vice Speaker Benjamin Cruz, one of the senators who introduced the bill, yesterday said he didn't want smokers standing by the door of a place if they can't smoke inside. Because lawmakers don't require a restaurant customer to tolerate cigarette smoke while eating, they shouldn't have to walk through a cloud of smoke to get to the door, either, Cruz said.

Jump to full article »

• BASHAM/LUIK: NYC: the city that never smokes  

Thanks to some unusual candour on the part of the anti-tobacco brigade in New York City, we now have official confirmation that banning smoking in public has absolutely nothing to do with protecting the health of non-smokers from second-hand smoke, but everything to do with stigmatising both smoking and smokers. Closer to home, new evidence from the National Health Service (NHS) shows that the public smoking ban in England has made absolutely no positive difference in smoking rates, despite claims made by its champions that it would.

In September, Dr Thomas Farley, New York City's Health Commissioner, proposed banning smoking at all of the city's parks and beaches (1). Dr Farley's rationale for the ban has nothing to do with the risks that outdoor smoking pose to non-smokers, but rather with preventing people, particularly children, from having to see anyone smoking in public. . . .

Patrick Basham directs the Democracy Institute and is a Cato Institute adjunct scholar. John Luik is a Democracy Institute senior fellow. They are co-authors of Hidden in Plain Sight: Why Tobacco Display Bans Fail.

Jump to full article »

• Unanimous support on Capitola City Council for smoking ban  

The tide is turning against smokers in this oceanfront tourist town.

Citing health hazards and cigarette butt litter, the City Council unanimously expressed support Thursday night for a smoking ban on the Esplanade, Stockton Avenue Bridge and the wharf, all locations frequented by visitors, and other public property in the city.

Council members told staff to draft an ordinance covering those locations and schedule a public hearing. In addition, Councilman Dennis Norton favored banning smoking throughout the city, which attracts thousands of tourists every year. So did Councilmen Ron Graves and Mayor Bob Begun. Councilmen Kirby Nicol and Sam Storey said they would consider a broader ban.

Though the council decided not to go that far at this point, environmental and health advocates hailed the city.

Jump to full article »

• Tacoma bans smoking in public parks 

By a 6-3 vote, the Tacoma City Council approved late Tuesday an ordinance that makes smoking in any public park in the city illegal.

"To me, this is like the noise ordinance," said Councilman Jake Fey, who supported the measure. "There needs to be a balance."

The ordinance makes such public smoking a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $25 fine, although city officials have said police do not plan to actively enforce the law.

Supporters said the measure is a way to protect seniors, children and others from the dangers of second-hand smoke, as well as to promote overall healthy living.

Jump to full article »

• No lighting up, even on sidewalk?  

Jarred Postell, a smoker, says he thinks people should be allowed to smoke outside, so he doesn't support the idea of a ban on lighting up on a section of Elizabeth Avenue.

When N.C. restaurants and bars go smoke-free at the start of 2010, smokers might find another place they aren't welcome: part of Elizabeth Avenue and its sidewalks.

Central Piedmont Community College campuses are going tobacco-free next year, and the school asked the city of Charlotte to ban smoking on Elizabeth Avenue from Kings Drive to Charlottetown Avenue, where it bisects its central campus.

If the City Council approves the ban, Charlotte would be among the first cities in the country to ban smoking on a city sidewalk or street.

Jump to full article »

• ACT govt cracks down on smoking outdoors  

Smokers will be banned from lighting up in outdoor areas where food and drinks are served under new laws being proposed by the ACT government.

It will force smokers to move at least two metres away from eating and drinking areas if they want a cigarette.

The move - mirroring similar measures in Queensland and Tasmania - is about ensuring a smoke-free workplace for waiters and waitresses, the ACT government says.

But Health Minister Katy Gallagher concedes businesses have a tough time ahead should the laws be passed.

Under the draft laws, any outdoor area where food or drinks are served must remain smoke-free, with restaurants, cafes, clubs and pubs - not the smokers - facing fines if they don't toe the line.

Ms Gallagher said she expected opposition from industry groups, but maintained no worker should be exposed to smoke in their workplace.

Jump to full article »

• Light Up, Michael. We’ll Pay Your Tab! 

The Beverly Hills Cigar Club (BHCC) has offered to pay the $100 fine, if the basketball legend wants another smoke during the President's Cup golf matches, which start today in San Francisco. . . .

"Smoking a fine cigar in the open air landscape of a golf course should be a basic right," says BHCC CEO Vin Lee. "If Jordan wants to enjoy another round with a great cigar, we'll pay the fine. In fact, we'll give him a box of Louixs, our finest Rosado blend, or his favorite cigar, and pick up the tab."

Jump to full article »