Tobacco.org

County officials weigh possibility of additional smoking restrictions  

Local county health officials are considering new smoking restrictions once the statewide ban on puffing in bars and restaurants takes effect Jan. 2.

Largely overlooked during the debate over the law, which puts an end to smoking inside in most bars and restaurants, a provision in the new ban will extend the power of local governments to pass their own ordinances to snuff out smoking.

In the existing law, cities and counties in North Carolina can only ban smoking inside local government buildings, around health departments or departments of social services and on public transportation vehicles.

When the new smoking law takes effect, local governments can restrict smoking in more places if they want.

Jump to full article »

CHILDERS: Gavel to Gavel: Up in smoke  

It is easy to get caught up in the anti-smoking movement and assume that smokers in the workplace have no protection. However, that assumption would be a mistake, especially in Oklahoma.

Interestingly, in Oklahoma those who choose to use tobacco products do have certain rights conferred upon them by the Oklahoma Legislature. Specifically, 40 O.S. §500 states that “It shall be unlawful for an employer to: (1) discharge any individual, or otherwise disadvantage any individual, with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because the individual is a nonsmoker or smokes or uses tobacco products during non-working hours; or (2) require as a condition of employment that any employee or applicant for employment abstain from smoking or using tobacco products during nonworking hours.”

This statutory language means that while Oklahoma employers can establish anti-smoking rules, they cannot hold it against employees who choose to use tobacco during nonwork hours or on noncompany property. So, refusing to hire an applicant because he or she smokes is prohibited. Likewise, taking an adverse action against an existing employee because it is learned he or she smokes is prohibited.

Where it really gets tricky is with anti-smoking campaigns by employers that encourage and incentivize employees to quit smoking. . . .

Bottom line, the anti-smoking movement is here to stay and efforts by Oklahoma employers to void their workplaces of tobacco use are largely supported. However, you would do well to remember that smoking employees in Oklahoma are not without any rights

Jump to full article »

Locals not fired up by ban on smoking  

While one state legislator wants to give local communities the power to ban smoking in bars and restaurants, Livingston County officials don't seems interested in it.

"It's too much government," Brighton Mayor Kate Lawrence said.

Lawrence said it should be up to each individual business owner whether to permit smoking.

"It's not the government's job," she said.

Hartland Township Supervisor Bill Fountain shared a similar view of the proposal.

"I feel it should be up to each establishment if they want smoking or not," Fountain said. He's the owner of the Majestic at Lake Walden golf course, which is a smoke-free facility.

Jump to full article »

New bill would let local governments ban smoking 

Fed up with the bottleneck on a smoking ban in all places that serve food in Michigan, Rudyard Democratic Rep. Gary McDowell has introduced legislation which would allow local government ban smoking.

The new legislation, the Associated Press reports, will amend current law to allow local jurisdictions to pass their own ban. Right now only the state of Michigan has the power to regulate smoking in places that serve food.

Jump to full article »

County affirms workplace smoking ban  

The Leelanau County Board of Commissioners this week ratified its narrow decision of last week to enact a new “Clean Indoor Air Regulation” that bans smoking in public and private work sites throughout the county – but not without debating the issue again for nearly an hour.

A sticking point was a one-word change in the regulation proposed by District No. 6 commissioner David G. Marshall, who insisted that officials “must” rather than “may” produce an informational brochure explaining provisions of the new regulation to employers and employees. . . .

The new smoking ban will not include bars and restaurants, but will require other private businesses that do not already do so to ban smoking indoors and post notices to that effect.

The state legislature retains authority to regulate smoking in bars and restaurants.

Jump to full article »

Bill lets towns decide on restaurant smoking  

Local governments in Michigan should be able to prohibit smoking in restaurants and bars since a proposed statewide ban remains stalled in the Legislature, a lawmaker says.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Gary McDowell, D-Rudyard, would let each county, city, township and village decide if people can smoke in local bars and restaurants. Courts have said Michigan law allows only the Legislature to ban smoking in food establishments.

McDowell said that should be changed because he does not think lawmakers will pass a ban on their own.

"It'll bring the debate back home, to every township and city hall," McDowell said in an interview. "Once one community does it, it'll start to spread across the state. It's hard to imagine which community in Michigan would want the notoriety of being the last to allow smoking in the workplace."

Jump to full article »

Bill lets Michigan towns decide on restaurant smoking  

A Michigan lawmaker says local governments should be able to ban smoking in restaurants and bars since a proposed statewide ban is stalled in the Legislature.

A bill sponsored by Rep. Gary McDowell would let each county, city, township and village decide if people can smoke in local bars and restaurants.

Michigan law allows only the Legislature to ban smoking in food establishments.

McDowell says the law should be changed because legislators will not pass a statewide ban.

The Rudyard Democrat had planned to testify Wednesday in a House committee, but his bill has been taken off the agenda.

Jump to full article »

Clean Indoor Air Regulation 

On August 11, 2009 the Muskegon County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to adopt the Muskegon County Clean Indoor Air Regulation. This regulation prohibits smoking within closed areas at public and private workplaces, other than bars, restaurants and tobacco specialty stores. Muskegon County joins over 20 other counties in Michigan in enacting a regulation protecting residents from secondhand smoke in the worksite environment. The regulation goes into effect November 9, 2009.

Beginning November 9, 2009, all public and private worksites in Muskegon County, other than bars, restaurants and tobacco specialty stores, must have in place a policy prohibiting smoking in all enclosed areas. Private residences that are used as a child care, health care or adult day care facility or as a business open to the public must also comply with this regulation.

Summary of Regulation

Tools for Businesses

Checklist for Ensuring Compliance with Regulation . . .

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the effective date?

The regulation was passed on August 11, 2009 and goes into effect on November 9, 2009.

What does this regulation do?

It requires the following indoor areas to be smoke-free:

* All worksites in Muskegon County with two or more employees (including home based businesses); indoor areas only; business vehicles that are used by two or more people; outdoors within a reasonable distance from any entrances, windows and ventilation system

* All enclosed public gathering places

* It DOES NOT apply to bars and restaurants (state law does not allow local health departments to prohibit smoking in these establishments)

Jump to full article »

Counties now have authority to pass more stringent anti-smoking rules 

The state's highest court ruled Tuesday that counties have the authority to pass tougher smoking bans than state lawmakers.

The decision by the Michigan Supreme Court shifts the debate on smoke-free workplaces from Lansing, where state lawmakers failed to institute a statewide ban last year, to local communities. However, the ability to ban smoking in bars and restaurants still resides with legislators.

Jump to full article »

• Counties Can Pass Smoking Rules 

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties can put more stringent anti-smoking rules in place than state lawmakers.

Courts have said only the Legislature can ban smoking in restaurants and bars.

But local governments are prohibiting smoking inside other businesses because of secondhand smoke risks.

All seven justices on the high court said Tuesday that local officials can adopt stricter smoking regulations than the state to safeguard public health.

But the court split 4-3 on another issue, voting to uphold a northern Michigan health department's rules letting workers sue if they're fired for asserting the right to a smoke-free environment.

Jump to full article »

• BERLIND: Tobacco and the Tort Bar 

However, in a little-noticed provision, the bill also expressly provides that "no provision of this chapter . . . shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect . . . the liability of any person under the product liability law of any State." In other words, the regulatory regime that the legislation would establish can't protect companies from tort liability -- even if they rigorously follow every FDA rule.

This is a bizarre pairing of almost total government involvement in an industry without any government responsibility for, or even modest protection from, the damage claims sure to be generated by that industry for following the law.

The FDA legislation builds on the precedent recently established by the Supreme Court in Wyeth v. Levine. In Wyeth, the Court ruled 6-3 that even if the FDA has approved a drug, the drug maker can still be sued by patients in state court. The majority argued that a litigant is still entitled to claim that the company should have used a stronger warning label than the FDA had required.

But as Justice Samuel Alito observed in his dissenting opinion, "the real issue is whether a state tort jury can countermand the FDA's considered judgment."

The president has proclaimed a "new era of responsibility" for America. But these recent FDA developments -- in which government determines the rules, the business community takes the blame, and trial lawyers take their cut -- seems anything but.

Like elevating the rights of unions over those of secured lenders, the FDA tobacco legislation disturbingly suggests that only those disfavored by the administration will actually be held responsible for anything at all. And it's no secret that the trial bar -- among Mr. Obama's most generous campaign supporters -- has already earned billions from tobacco litigation.

If we truly believe in "responsibility" for businesses, government officials, trial lawyers and ordinary citizens, then regulatory compliance should provide a strong defense against tort claims.

Jump to full article »

County Can't Ban Smoking At Home, Yet 

This week, NC House Bill 2 was signed into law, and it's a bill that - with limited exceptions - bans smoking in bars and restaurants across the state and allows local boards of health to ban smoking in a few additional places if the local boards of commissioners agree.

Also, beginning Jan. 2, 2010, the bill gives the Guilford County Board of Health - and other health boards across the state - the ability to go even further and ban smoking in other buildings and establishments as well, such as workplaces - but in reality all the power lies in the hands of the county commissioners because any move to ban smoking in additional places by the Board of Health would, starting July 1, 2009, have to be approved by the Board of Commissioners.

In the past, local boards of health in North Carolina weren't allowed to pass anti-smoking laws that were more restrictive than state laws, but House Bill 2 changes that.

On Monday, May 18, the Guilford County Board of Health met at the county's Human Services Building on Maple Street and spent much of the meeting discussing the future of anti-smoking laws in Guilford County.

Jump to full article »

• KC’s smoking ban gets appeals court hearing  

The fate of Kansas City's voter-approved smoking ban now rests with the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Lawyers for the city and a group opposing the smoking ban squared off this morning in arguments before the appeals court.

At issue is whether Kansas City's ban on smoking in small bars and billiard parlors complies with state law or exceeds the authority given by the state to regulate smoking.

Jonathan Sternberg argued on behalf of JC's Sports Bar, which was fined for violating the Kansas City comprehensive ban against smoking in bars and restaurants that voters approved in 2008. Sternberg argued that, under state law, Kansas City is not allowed to regulate smoking in bars, billiard parlors and restaurants that seat fewer than 50 people. He said smoking in small bars such as JC's is specifically permitted under the state's Clean Indoor Air Act, and the city cannot prohibit what state law allows.

Jump to full article »

News Republic Editorial: We can live with state ban on smoking  

Yes, for some it's a cold, hard slap from the heavy hand of government, but it appears to be one we all needed.

So we applaud the move. This is welcome and long-overdue legislation. Second-hand smoke is a killer. We believe a person's privilege to smoke should be enjoyed in a private setting where it does not pose a public health threat. . . .

Local governments cannot impose any regulations stricter than the state ban. Not subject to the ban are tribal casinos, existing cigar bars and existing tobacco shops.

Sen. Fred Risser, D-Madison, author of the bill, said the ban creates fair competition throughout the state and would save lives and taxpayer dollars on health care costs.

An estimate from the state Department of Health Services said the bill will save about $754,000 in Medicaid expenses annually.

But if smoking is key to your pursuit of happiness, then go ahead and smoke. Just don't do it in the face of a non-smoker.

The state smoking ban -- to smokers and non-smokers -- we believe will become a law we can all live with.

Jump to full article »

State Ban Would Trump Local Smoking Victory  

KENOSHA - Patti Nies fought for a smoking ban in Kenosha after losing both her parents and a sister to smoking related illnesses. . . .

Pub owners convinced the city council and a slim majority of local voters that smoking should stay.

"We didn't give up," said Nies. "We all got together after that and said this isn't over."

And it wasn't over. The battle lost by local advocates will likely be won at the state level.

Lawmakers reached agreement last week on a measure that would outlaw lighting up in just about every public place and private business in Wisconsin. The state has never been closer to a smoking ban. . . .

An adjustment is an understatement says Jim Matzur, owner of the Boathouse Pub & Eatery on Kenosha's lakefront.

"This could be the final straw that breaks the camel's back for a lot of local taverns and small restaurants," he said.

Matzur says bar owners were betrayed by their voice in Madison.

"They're very bitter that the Tavern League didn't put up a better battle," he explained.

There are some bar owners in Kenosha who are so upset with the Tavern League that they are considering leaving the organization, Matzur said.

Jump to full article »