Tobacco.org

WATERS: Smoking out socialist smack on cigarettes 

For example, the state's Chief Smoking Nanny, Ellen Hahn, who directs the University of Kentucky Center for Smoke Free Policy, recently issued her call for a statewide ban while in Bowling Green to speak to the Rotary Club.

"I think it would be really wonderful if the state would pass it," Hahn told Dan Modlin, news director for Western Kentucky University's public radio affiliate, who covered the speech. "However, let me just say -- it has got to be totally comprehensive, meaning that all work places would be covered."

Then to my amazement, she added: "It has to have anti-pre-emptive language, meaning that local governments could do more if they wanted to."

Look out. The nannies think those governments not satisfied with simply trampling on the private-property rights of business owners should be able to tell you what you can - or cannot - do in your personal living space.

Perhaps they could force apartment-building owners to ban smoking in their units, or send armed troops to arrest parents who smoke at home around children.

Not only that, Hahn wants to spend "millions" on a statewide ban. Making a comment like that during an economic downturn makes me wonder what she's been smoking.

By pushing for a statewide ban while in Bowling Green, Hahn thumbed her nose at the city commission, which voted 3-2 against a comprehensive smoking ban in August 2007.

Jump to full article »

Senate Bill 113 

Short Title: An Act amending the act of June 13, 2008 (P.L.182, No.27), known as the Clean Indoor Air Act, further prohibiting smoking in public places; providing for local ordinances; and making a related repeal of the Fire and Panic Act.

Prime Sponsor: Senator GREENLEAF

Last Action: Referred to PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE, Jan. 29, 2009 [Senate]

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Time to clear the air  

Along the mythical route known as Tobacco Road, what is happening today -- and may happen beyond -- would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.

Effective today, the federal tobacco excise tax will rise 62 cents per pack to fund children's health care.

At the same time, state lawmakers are seriously considering a smoking ban in all public buildings, bars and restaurants. They could vote on such legislation as soon as today.

Meanwhile, Gov. Bev Perdue wants to increase the cigarette tax in North Carolina by $1 per pack to help fill revenue gaps.

Given tobacco's deep roots and strong traditions in this state, any one of these developments would have been considered heresy not that long ago. But that was then. . . .

Despite all of that evidence, the vote for a state public smoking ban probably will be closer than it ought to be. Rarely has something so bad for us (the habit) been so good to us (the industry).

The bill, whose primary author is Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat, is not perfect. It trumps cities' rights to pass their own smoking ordinances, unless they are even tougher. It provides few exceptions where smokers only may gather, by choice (tobacco shops, tobacco plants, designated guest rooms in hotels and motels).

It may reach a little further than it should to protect smokers from themselves.

But in the interest of the broader public's well-being, it is the right thing to do.

Jump to full article »

NC Officials Could Stiffen Anti-Smoking Laws  

A proposed law banning smoking in North Carolina bars, restaurants and other public places has lenient penalties, but allows local governments to impose tougher enforcement if they choose.

The bill discussed in a House committee Tuesday would ban smoking in enclosed public places, including workplaces.

Jump to full article »

KABLER: Smoking bans and smoking politics 

Newest bad bill of the session: Legislation introduced in the House (HB2932) to require county commissions to approve any public health department restrictions on smoking in public or private places.

The sponsors, including Delegate Mike Caputo, D-Marion, insist that it is not about overturning smoking bans, but to bring "transparency" to the policymaking process of public health boards.

However, it's curious then that the bill applies only to smoking regulations - not any other health regulations those boards might enact.

It's also bad public policy, since boards of health were intentionally designed to be beyond the reach of politics. (The idea is to avoid scenarios where a politician could overrule health inspectors' shutting down a restaurant for serious health code violations because the owner happens to be a relative or friend of the politico.)

Jump to full article »

Modification to smoking bans closer to approval 

A bill that could turn the tables on Marion County's recently passed smoking ban moved a step closer to approval earlier last week.

The bill, which would require all future countywide smoking bans and all bans not yet in effect to be approved by the state's county commissions instead of the boards of health, passed through the House's Political Subdivisions Committee by a "wide margin" Thursday and is moving on to the Judiciary Committee, Delegate Tim Manchin, D-Marion, said.

Manchin heads of the Political Subdivisions Committee and sponsored this bill along with House Majority Whip Mike Caputo and Delegate Linda Longstreth, who also represent Marion County.

And although the bill is moving on, Manchin said it still has a long way to go before final approval.

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Bill would ‘fix’ mistake regarding smoking ban 

House Majority Whip Mike Caputo and Delegates Tim Manchin and Linda Longstreth, all D-Marion, have sponsored a bill that would require all smoking bans not yet in effect and all future bans to be approved by the state’s county commissions — not the county boards of health . . .

Like the delegates who sponsored the bill, the Times West Virginian editorial board has never spoken out against the end result — a ban on smoking — but about about the process by which the ban was passed.

“Right now, it’s badly handled, and I just think that voters have a hard time accepting that a body that is not accountable to the public, to the electorate, can impose these regulations on the county,” Manchin said.

If HB 2932 passes, there would also be concrete notice requirements for public comment and public hearings, and if the county commission fails to act on a ban within a certain number of days, the regulation would become void.

If the bill passes, Marion County residents might actually get a say about the smoking ban — something they’ve been denied for the past year. With the county commission responsible for the ultimate decision, in the hands of the government body it should be open to public discourse instead of passed in the back room of a local restaurant.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: No smoking 

I have a modest proposal for our legislators to consider that will enable small businesses to reduce health insurance costs: Repeal RSA 275:37-a, which prohibits an employer from requiring an employee to abstain from smoking as a condition of employment. What better way to help small businesses to control health care costs than by permitting them to legally refuse to hire smokers?

Jump to full article »

Wyeth, Drugmakers Lose as Top U.S. Court Allows Suits (Update4)  

The U.S. Supreme Court said patients can sue drugmakers for failing to provide adequate safety warnings, upholding a $7 million award to a musician who lost her arm after being injected with Wyeth’s Phenergan nausea treatment.

The justices, voting 6-3, said pharmaceutical companies aren’t shielded from suit by the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of a treatment and its packaging information.

“Congress did not intend FDA oversight to be the exclusive means of ensuring drug safety and effectiveness,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

Injured patients and their families are pressing thousands of suits around the country, seeking billions of dollars in damages from drug companies. Today’s decision might help former users of Wyeth’s Prempro and Premarin menopause drugs and consumers of AstraZeneca Plc’s antipsychotic drug Seroquel.

The impact isn’t clear for allegations that Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline Plc should have done more to warn that their anti-depressants might cause suicidal tendencies. . . .

The decision marks the second time during its current term that the high court has said federal law doesn’t preempt consumer lawsuits. The justices in December said smokers can sue tobacco companies over the marketing of “light” cigarettes. . . .

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito dissented.

Jump to full article »

• No Legal Shield in Drug Labeling, Justices Rule 

In a major setback for business groups that had hoped to build a barrier against injury lawsuits seeking billions of dollars, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said state juries may award damages for harm from unsafe drugs even though their manufacturers had satisfied federal regulators.

The ruling could have significant implications beyond drug manufacturing. Many companies have sought tighter federal regulation in recent years in part to shield themselves from litigation. . . .

The Supreme Court has been sympathetic in recent years to arguments that federal law should pre-empt state injury suits. Last year, in Riegel v. Medtronic, an eight-justice majority of the court ruled that many state suits concerning injuries caused by medical devices were barred by the express language in a federal law. Wednesday's decision addressed implied pre-emption, a different legal standard.

Drug companies and other businesses, supported by the Bush administration, had hoped the Vermont case would establish broader protections. They relied not on express language in a statute enacted by Congress, as in Riegel, but on what might be implied from federal regulatory standards and policies -- in this case, from the drug agency's authority to approve drug labels.

Producers of goods as different as antifreeze, fireworks, popcorn, cigarettes and light bulbs have sought to take refuge behind federal oversight in recent years to fend off litigation. After Wednesday's decision, those efforts are most likely to succeed if they are based on express language in a Congressional statute or a specific regulatory action that makes compliance with state requirements impossible.

Jump to full article »

State smoking ban up for a vote  

A ban on public smoking in North Carolina is headed for a possible General Assembly vote, with Watauga County legislators lining up as sponsors for the bill.

Rep. Cullie Tarleton (D-93) one of 26 House of Representatives co-sponsors and Sen. Steve Goss (D-45) one of 14 Senate sponsors for the bill, which was debated by the House Committee on Health Thursday without a vote.

The bill would revise a current law banning smoking in state government buildings to include all "public places and places of employment." It is based on the finding in the proposed bill that reads, "The General Assembly finds that secondhand smoke has been proven to cause cancer, heart disease, and asthma attacks in both smokers and non-smokers. In 2006, a report issued by the United States Surgeon General stated that the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure."

The bill would also allow local governments to enact local smoking laws in their jurisdictions that are more restrictive than state laws.

Jump to full article »

Smoking ban amended to allow tougher stand  

A bill that would ban smoking in many public places was amended by the Indiana House today to let communities pass a tougher ban if they want.

House Bill 1213, sponsored by Rep. Charlie Brown, D-Gary, had been watered down in committee, but the House, on a voice vote, overwhelmingly voted to let cities and towns enact tougher smoking bans.

The amendment was offered by Rep. Peggy Welch, a Democrat who said her hometown of Bloomington bans smoking in all public places, and would not want to roll back those restrictions.

Jump to full article »

Neb. panel kills measure allowing cities to opt out of state smoking ban 

ska lawmakers have buried a plan to let cities and villages opt out of the statewide smoking ban that will go into effect in June.

On Wednesday, the Legislature's Health and Human Services Committee voted to kill the opt-out measure (LB611) Sen. Russ Karpisek of Wilber proposed.

Lawmakers considered a different opt-out clause last year, but rejected the idea.

Jump to full article »

Court decision may impact local smoking law 

A local workplace smoking ban could be snuffed out if the Michigan Supreme Court sides with business owners challenging similar rules in some northern Michigan counties.

Traverse City is one of four Michigan cities that regulate workplace smoking, as do 21 counties. The Benzie-Leelanau District Health Department also is considering smoke-free worksite regulations.

But some residents and business owners in Antrim, Charlevoix, Emmet and Otsego counties contend smoking ordinances passed there in 2005 are preempted by state law. The Michigan Supreme Court is expected to rule on their lawsuit by the end of July.

Traverse City's workplace smoking ban took effect in 2007, and city officials now want to add to it and regulate smoking in city bars and restaurants.

Jump to full article »

Anti-smoking bills move forward in Va. Senate 

A state Senate panel this morning passed a slew a bills that would place restrictions on public smoking in certain venues.

Three of the proposals that advanced from the Senate Education and Health committee are sponsored by South Hampton Roads legislators. Sens. Louise Lucas, D-Portsmouth, and Fred Quayle, R-Suffolk, are both carrying bills that would give localities enhanced powers to restrict indoor smoking.

Sen. Ralph Northam, D-Norfolk, has a bill that would ban smoking in indoor restaurants and bars. That measure has the backing of Gov. Timothy M. Kaine

Jump to full article »