Tobacco.org

New smoking law could be costly for Va. businesses 

Bishop owns the Woodbridge Inn, and he said he's lucky because abiding by the legislation will probably cost him only about $2,000. Others may have to spend thousands more, he said.

Regardless, the law, passed by the Virginia General Assembly in February and signed by Gov. Timothy M. Kaine in March, is something about which eatery owners are thinking.

It prohibits lighting up in restaurants unless there is a smoking room that is physically separated and independently ventilated from nonsmoking areas. However, it exempts private clubs such as lodges, and nonenclosed outdoor areas of establishments.

Bishop already has separate ventilation systems at the watering hole he's owned for nearly three decades. So he's expecting to have to enclose only one area.

Jump to full article »

• Smoking debate leaves a few burning questions 

Arguments aside, the way leading lawmakers handled the issue of a potential statewide smoking ban in taverns and restaurants this week was not in the spirit of a more transparent government.

The two committee chairman handling the bill -- Jon Erpenbach and Jon Richards -- gave a just a shade more than the required 24-hour notice before holding a hearing and then voting on the bill.

With the Democrats now in control of the dome, it's expected that the ban will sail through the Legislature swimmingly, so there was really no reason for legislative subterfuge.

Republicans were in the majority and able to block such efforts last year. Gov. Jim Doyle tried to shove this policy in the budget, but Democratic leadership thought that move even less transparent and figured this would be a better dog-and-pony show.

It didn't get past Milwaukee Ald. Bob Donovan, who sent out a scathing press release about the under-the-radar hearings.

"It now seems Gov. Doyle and some state legislators are willing to throw out the constitution on their crusade to snuff out smoking," . . .

The Cigar Store Alliance of Wisconsin showed up in force, telling the committee that they have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars on ventilation and air purification systems and other amenities. They unanimously said that a smoking ban would shut down their businesses. The response to the cigar group from anti-smoking folks was that it was too bad that they made a bad business decision given the environment towards smoking.

A more interesting comment came from a women identified as "Miss Thompson." She sees the anti-smoking folks as conducting a "witch hunt" and that it's a "Nazi ideology that the individual belongs to the state" and that victims are being kept in the dark by a "censured media" while government is "totally corrupt and out of control."

Sometimes, the advocates for the ban got their facts confused, with one Lung Association representative saying that four of every five people are non-smokers and another Lung Association rep asserting that the figures are three non-smokers for every four people.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Smoking ban complicated 

The Kansas Legislature is considering a statewide smoking ban. This issue is not as simple as “ban or not.”

The Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association (KRHA) has traditionally opposed smoking bans as a governmental infringement on the ability of restaurant owners and others to manage their businesses and determine their own clientele. Yet, given the concerns of many regarding second-hand smoke, the KRHA has proposed a reasonable compromise: any restaurant desiring to accommodate smoking patrons must utilize a separate room, physically separated from the rest of the facility by floor to ceiling walls, and separately ventilated

In this manner, there is no exposure to non-smoking patrons, and no business revenue lost.

Jump to full article »

Strafford County Administrative Building, Riverside Rest Home exempt from state smoking ban 

In an era where puffing a cigarette indoors is becoming more and more rare in the state, at least one thing has remained constant -- smoking at the Strafford County Administrative Building.

For several years the building has housed a separate smoking room for county staff and members of the public looking to grab a drag or two, while at the building for court proceedings.

The county owns the complex, but a portion is leased by the state for the county's Superior Court on the second floor. The smoking room is in the basement in a room a few doors down from the cafeteria.

There's also a smoking room at The Riverside Rest Home, also operated by the county.

Smoking is banned in schools, child-care agencies, hospitals, grocery stores, elevators, buses, tramways and restaurants and bars. However, there are some exemptions, including nursing homes, public buildings and offices and workplaces that have segregated areas for smoking. . . .

Like Strafford County, the Rockingham County Nursing Home has a ventilation system to prevent smoke from going into other rooms, Barrows said.

Jump to full article »

Proposed smoking ban protested by Clayton restaraunteurs 

Frank Schmitz owns Barcelona, which is smoker friendly. He was one of 20 restaurateurs that attended an invitation only meeting at Clayton City Hall on Tuesday afternoon.

Schmitz is worried that imposing a mandatory smoking ban will hurt his Clayton business and others.

"My dining customers are very happy that they are in an area that doesn't get affected by smoke," Schmitz said. "And my smoking customers are very happy that they are allowed to be at the bar consuming and being able to smoke."

Schmitz says he has a special air filtration system in his restaurant that eliminates the smoke.

Jump to full article »

• Bill easing smoking ban passes  

CARSON CITY, Nev.--A bill that would ease the terms of a voter-approved measure that banned smoking in many bars and other public places was approved on a 6-1 Wednesday by a key legislative committee.

SB372, approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, would soften the 2006 Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act to allow smoking in bars that serve food as long as minors are restricted from entry. Also, businesses could wall off separately ventilated smoking rooms.

Jump to full article »

Shakey's going smoke-free 

Shakey's Pub and Grub has made a lot of effort trying to appeal to those who smoke and those who don't.

The restaurant and bar that sits along U.S. 42 in the heart of Florence offers smoking and non-smoking sections. Owner Shakey Shaw has spent more than $30,000 on a ventilation system that keeps the air mostly free of smoke and haze.

But on April 1, Shakey's is going smoke-free. That's no April Fool's joke.

Concerned that he is losing customers who want to eat, drink and watch sports in a smoke-free environment, Shaw is making what he knows is a difficult decision that will alienate and even drive off some long time customers.

"I'm getting a lot of heat from the non-smokers," Shaw said Thursday night as he sipped on a Bud Light while seated near the restaurant's front door. "A lot of people don't want to be around cigarette smoke. I know I'm taking a chance. But I've made the decision, and it's what I'm going to do."

Jump to full article »

LETTERS: Smoking, Metal Detectors, Drug Sweeps and Houston Pavilions  

Hair Balls blog readers respond to "City Says Smoking Ban Has Had No Impact On Bars," By John Nova Lomax, February 26:

Deadline to meet city smoking ban requirements fast approaching 

After watching battles over smoking bans in Salina and Wichita, Dodge City Fire Chief Dan Williamson was expecting some resistance from local businesses when Dodge adopted its ban last fall.

But so far, he's been pleasantly surprised.

"In reality, business compliance and business acceptance have been very favorable," Williamson told the Globe on Tuesday. "We have appreciated the businesses that have taken the steps to comply and make it an easy transition."

By April 1, Dodge City businesses must either ban smoking on their premises or finish building special smoking rooms to meet the city's standards. Those rooms must be enclosed on all sides by solid, impermeable walls or floor-to-ceiling windows, and they must have self-closing doors.

The rooms are required to maintain a negative air pressure — that is, more air is exhausted from the area than is directly supplied by heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems. In addition, the rooms must include a ventilation system that exhausts air from the room directly to the outside.

Smoking will not be allowed in those rooms until the business passes a city inspection, pays a $100 permit fee and registers as a smoking zone. The business must renew the permit each year for a $25 fee.

Jump to full article »

Kaine poised to sign smoking ban 

Gov. Tim Kaine is set to sign into law Monday a sweeping restaurant and bar smoking ban, cementing the marquee policy victory of his term but leaving restaurant owners and industry groups frustrated.

A key provision in the ban -- allowing smoking in a separately ventilated and cordoned-off chamber within the restaurant -- will be prohibitively expensive, opponents of the measure said, especially at a time when the businesses are struggling to retain customers.

"Because of the cost, especially right now with the economy the way it is, most restaurants are not going to be doing this. It's not cost-effective for them," said Megan Svajda, director of government relations for the Virginia Hospitality and Travel Association.

Building an additional smoking room could cost between $60,000 and $70,000

Jump to full article »

EU Commission Confirms Suspicions 

Environmental air pollution is a much greater threat to the health of EU citizens than many of us are led to believe. The alleged effects of passive smoking are dwarfed in comparison to the deadly cocktails of toxins that are present within the atmosphere and workplaces of EU countries, including the UK.

In a recent letter received from the EU Commission, pro-choice group Freedom2Choose have had this suspicion confirmed by one of its members. . . .

Breast Cancer UK have already pointed out in a petition to the government that 'The EU recently recognised the environmental causes of breast cancer which must be taken into account when considering any public health approach to this disease. But other, high profile UK cancer charities continue to refute environmental and occupational exposures as a risk factor for breast cancer.'

Andy Davis continues, 'I would like to know how many more women need to die before this government and our main charities begin to acknowledge this. It also appears logical now that forcing smokers (and their non-smoking friends) into outdoor environments is putting them at a greater health risk than a room fitted with a modern filtration and ventilation system. This government, and the EU, are therefore following an agenda that is actually harmful to the health of its citizens'. . . .

Modern ventilation systems include high-efficiency particulate air filters, and are designed to capture at least 99.97% of all particles greater than or equal to 0.3�m in diameter, and are also used to capture particulate matter in the extraction, thus making the indoor air quality purer than the outdoor environment.

Inexpensive air curtains can also be used to separate smoking and non-smoking areas and they have several advantages. . . .

Freedom2Choose is now urging the government to acknowledge that the hysteria caused by tobacco control organisations, which is demonising and discriminating against smokers and businesses, is being used as a smokescreen to hide the main cause of lung and breast cancer.

Jump to full article »

How delegates and senators voted on Virginia smoking ban 

Results Thursday as the House, on a 60-39 vote, passed the first significant curbs on smoking in Virginia bars and restaurants.

Voting yes were 21 Republicans and 39 Democrats. Voting no were 31 Republicans, six Democrats and two independents.

A yes vote is in support of restrictions that include requiring restaurants that allow smoking to limit it to separately ventilated rooms away from nonsmokers. Delegates grouped by party and listed alphabetically by hometown according to their vote.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Blowing smoke, legally  

Attorneys are there to give advice, and policymakers are there to take it or leave it, then make policy. When it comes to Long Beach's cigar ordinance, they should have taken it.

City Attorney Bob Shannon warned City Council members they would be on shaky legal footing if they made it legal to smoke cigars in private lounges but illegal to smoke anything else in similar circumstances. He was right.

The city's smoking ordinance, as revised Tuesday, invites lawsuits from hookah lounges, or any other private smoking place unless customers stick strictly to cigars. The logic doesn't hold.

Neither is it practical. What will we do if somebody lights up a Marlboro in a cigar lounge . . .

But the idea of legitimizing smoking lounges makes sense, so long as filtering systems protect nonsmokers in the vicinity from secondhand smoke. Now all the ordinance needs is a little more lawyering.

Jump to full article »

• Critics Say Smoking Bill Is Weak Ban  

When Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) and Republican House Speaker William J. Howell announced that they had quietly brokered a compromise that would ban smoking in the state's bars and restaurants, anti-smoking advocates did not rejoice. They read the fine print.

And they didn't like what they found.

They said vague language in the ban allowed restaurants to create separate ventilated rooms for smokers but didn't define the standards for such a room. And they said the fine for ignoring the ban was tiny -- $25 for a violation. . . .

Tobacco industry lobbyists weren't happy, either. Glynn Loope, executive director of Cigar Rights of America, said that when the Internet lighted up with news of the ban, he was so mad he "almost threw the computer across the room."

For years, critics of Kaine and Howell (Stafford) have argued that the two showed a striking lack of interest in brokering legislative deals. Now, they have brought the General Assembly closer to passing a restaurant smoking ban in Virginia, a significant political and cultural shift for a state whose history has been intertwined with tobacco for centuries. The deal they struck is taking heavy fire from advocates on both sides.

As Kaine and Howell have pushed to win final approval of the ban, mistrust has pervaded the state Capitol. . . .

Loope began shopping around ideas of acceptable smoking restrictions, borrowing on legislation enacted in other states. In Oregon, for example, workers in smoky environments can sign waivers indicating they have been warned of the risks but opted to ignore them. In New York, cigar bars thrive, an exception to the city's smoking ban, because patrons go there explicitly to buy and use tobacco products.

Loope said he shared some of his research with Del. David B. Albo (R-Fairfax). Albo spent November and early December crafting his own version of a bill that attempted to address the concerns of the tobacco industry and the anti-smoking advocates.

"We basically came up with what we thought was a fair compromise," Albo said.

Jump to full article »

Project Brass 

This article is part of the Tobacco portal on Sourcewatch, sponsored by the American Legacy Foundation. Help expose the truth about the tobacco industry. . . .

Project Brass was a 1993 Philip Morris (PM) project designed to confuse the public regarding the health dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke, and to minimize the damage that the secondhand smoke issue was causing the tobacco industry. Project Brass was PM's response to the Risk Assessment issued on January 7, 1993 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that classified secondhand tobacco smoke (also known as Environmental Tobacco Smoke, or ETS) as a Group A Human Carcinogen . . .

Strategies Burnett designed to help PM fight the ETS issue were to 1) broaden the ETS issue to encompass total indoor air quality (thus deflecting attention away from the ETS issue), 2) use "credible third parties" to help the company fight public health measures, and 3) "create a sense of doubt about the EPA ETS report". [3]

Jump to full article »