Tobacco.org

• S.F. moves to curtail tobacco outlets  

Smokers are huffing and businesses fuming over a controversial new proposal to drastically reduce the number of stores in The City that can sell cigarettes.

Since 2003, retailers hawking tobacco products in San Francisco have had to apply for a special permit. The permitting process helps The City keep track of sellers and crack down on those vending to minors, officials said.

But now there are too many permits citywide -- particularly in low-income neighborhoods -- according to city officials and anti-tobacco advocates, who have created legislation that would greatly reduce the number of stores that sell tobacco.

An initial proposal imposes a cap of 35 permits for each of the 11 supervisor districts -- 385 total in The City. That is a more than a two-thirds reduction from the 1,097 stores currently selling tobacco products citywide.

The proposal would not take away permits from businesses, but it would reduce them through attrition until there are no more than 35 per district. Also, owners would not be able to transfer the permits when they sell their stores, said Janet Clyde, a commissioner in the Office of Small Business.

Jump to full article »

Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling: Executive Summary 

States usually cite two major reasons for hiking their cigarette taxes: to decrease smoking, and to increase state tax revenue. Although these two goals can conflict, the "inelastic" nature of the cigarette market often allows policymakers to achieve both aims at once, with modest smoking reductions accompanying net increases in tax revenue.

This outcome may become increasingly difficult to achieve, however. Many states have raised their cigarette taxes significantly in recent years. These increases have likely furthered the growth of two types of cigarette smuggling: "casual" smuggling, in which individual consumers save money by buying their cigarettes in low-tax states or countries, and "commercial" smuggling, in which larger-scale operators buy cigarettes in bulk in a low-tax area and sell them tax-free in high-tax areas. This smuggling undermines both the revenue and health goals of higher cigarette taxes, while producing unintended consequences for individual states and American society as a whole. In this study, the authors consider cigarette smuggling from two angles. First, they employ a statistical model to estimate the degree to which cigarette smuggling occurs in 47 of the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Second, they review the historical experiences of three states - Michigan, New Jersey and California - known to have problems with cigarette smuggling. . . .

The authors' review of Michigan's, New Jersey's and California's cigarette smuggling experiences suggest that cigarette smugglers can realize large profits: tens of thousands of dollars for a single vanload of cigarettes, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single truckload. These sums represent a loss in estimated tax revenues to a state's treasury, but they have produced other unintended consequences, including a variety of crimes:

Jump to full article »

Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling: A Statistical Analysis and Historical Review  

In this study, the authors consider cigarette smuggling from two angles. First, they employ a statistical model to estimate the degree to which cigarette smuggling occurs in 47 of the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Second, they review the historical experiences of three states -- Michigan, New Jersey and California -- known to have problems with cigarette smuggling. The author's findings suggest that state policymakers should reassess the value of cigarette taxes as a revenue and public health tool.

Jump to full article »

San Marcos' Smoke Signals 

"Behavior modification takes time," said a San Marcos city employee during a November 11 city council meeting. The behavior they would like to modify is to prevent smokers from lighting up in nondesignated areas and flicking their butts in city parks. In 2008, San Marcos city councilmembers tried to do just that when they approved an ordinance banning smoking on park trails as well as establishing designated areas where smokers could spark up.

So far, local health organizations and some councilmembers say the ordinance has been a success. Proof of that success took place at Woodland Park one Saturday afternoon in August. That day, volunteers searched the park for cigarette butts, finding a total of 74 butts tossed in planters, on sidewalks, parking lots, and on the grassy hills. A small number considering a similar event two years earlier, when volunteers collected 926 butts at the same location.

And while some claim the decrease is proof the ordinance is working, councilmember Chris Orlando isn't convinced. Orlando believes modifying the behavior is taking too much time. Instead of focusing on modifying the behavior, Orlando would like to modify the ordinance by removing the designated areas and turning the entire park, as well as a hundred-foot area surrounding it, into a smoke-free zone.

Jump to full article »

Smoking lounge rules on Long Beach Council agenda  

Smoke 'em if you got 'em - but only with a ventilation system and not if you're serving any food or beverages - may become Long Beach's new policy for the city's recently legalized smoking lounges.

Oh, and don't invite any of your friends - we're happy with the eight cigar lounges and four hookah bars that we have now, thank you - might also be added to the policy.

That last caveat could become the biggest challenge as the City Council tackles how to regulate smoking lounges Tuesday. The council's Economic Development and Finance Committee voted to recommend new smoking lounge regulations last week, but committee members were concerned about a proliferation of new lounges.

City attorneys and city staff said the city has limited legal right to restrict the number of lounges.

"Once we open this up, I think that there is the potential for other legitimate businesses to qualify under the regulations, and I think that is a consideration the council has to weigh," Director of Health and Human Services Ron Arias told the committee Wednesday.

Jump to full article »

Vegetarian menu at Qualcomm slips on list 

SAN DIEGO: A veterans legal assistance clinic at Thomas Jefferson School of Law has received a $50,000 grant as the result of the settlement of a class-action lawsuit against U.S. Smokeless Tobacco.

The lawsuit, which was settled for $96 million, alleged that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, which manufactures Skoal and Copenhagen chewing tobacco, attempted to monopolize the market in violation of state consumer protection laws.

After all known plaintiffs were paid, $40 million was available to be paid to charitable legal organizations.

The clinic provides legal assistance and legal representation to the residents and alumni of Veterans Village of San Diego, a residential program that provides substance abuse, mental health and job training services to formerly homeless veterans. The clinic has been operating for four years and has served about 300 veterans. —A.K.

Jump to full article »

No Smoking in Balconies and Patios 

A group of residents that successfully lobbied the City Council to ban smoking in common areas of apartments and condominiums wants the prohibition expanded to balconies and patios.

Santa Monicans for Non-Smoking Renters Rights also wants the creation of non-smoking sections for multi-family residential buildings, including units. And the group says landlords and condo owners should be forced to disclose smoking and non-smoking units to potential tenants and buyers.

"When someone smokes on a balcony or patio, the smoke is pulled into neighboring units because of the difference in air pressure," said group member Myra Morris, who called this "an intrusion."

A press release issued by the group claims that once secondhand smoke has drifted into a unit, it attaches to walls, floors, furniture and rugs and outgases back into the room, even if no one is smoking. The group looks to an article from January of this year in the journal Pediatrics as proof of the existence of what is called "third-hand smoke."

"If smoke is coming into your unit on a regular basis, you are at risk for illness," group member Barbara Bronie said "Cities have a responsibility to protect the public's health."

Jump to full article »

• 'Rolling Stone' Fights Claim It Misappropriated Indie Bands' Names to Promote Cigarettes 

Fending off accusations it misappropriated the names of more than 185 indie rockers to promote cigarettes, Rolling Stone magazine on Thursday appeared to have one appellate justice solidly in its corner.

However, two votes are needed to win and one justice was absent during oral arguments in San Francisco's 1st District Court of Appeal. The third didn't tip his hand.

Rolling Stone was sued last year by a class of indie bands -- led by the San Francisco Bay Area's Xiu Xiu and Toronto's Fucked Up -- who claimed the magazine had traded on their names by using them in a November 2007 graphic/article juxtaposed with a four-page, fold-out advertisement by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. that touted Camel cigarettes and the manufacturer's collaborations with indie groups. . . .

Nonetheless, the bands claim Rolling Stone intentionally used their names to help R.J. Reynolds sell Camels and that the ad implied the bands endorsed the product.

Jump to full article »

AUDIO: California's Adult Smoking Rate Bucks National Trend 

A new federal report shows the adult smoking rate in the U.S. has been virtually unchanged since 2004. California has fared much better than the national average.

The Centers for Disease Control says 20.6 percent of American adults smoke. The adult smoking rate in California is only 14 percent. That's the second lowest percentage of any state in the country.

Paul Knepprath is with the American Lung Association. He says California needs to raise the tobacco tax if it wants to continue making progress.

Jump to full article »

New smoking lounge rules raise questions for council committee 

Figuring out a way to allow existing smoking lounges to continue in Long Beach yet prevent more from opening is easier said than done, a City Council panel learned Wednesday afternoon.

The three-member Economic Development and Finance Committee got a first look at new regulations for smoking lounges, which the council voted to legalize in February, 15 years after Long Beach's groundbreaking ban on smoking in public places and workplaces went into effect. The full council will consider the lounge regulations next Tuesday.

The committee voted 2-1, with Councilwoman Rae Gabelich opposed, to recommend that the council approve the proposed regulations with a few changes, but was forced to stop short of implementing controls to prevent new smoking lounges from opening.

"You are old enough to make your own decisions," Gabelich said to several cigar lounge owners who attended Wednesday's meeting, "but I do not want any more of these anywhere in the city."

Jump to full article »

Palm Desert looking at new outdoor smoking rules  

Taking a cigarette break by the office door or lighting up on a restaurant patio may be about to get harder for smokers in Palm Desert.

The City Council is expected to vote on an update of the city's smoking ordinance that will require smokers to move 20 feet away from buildings' and businesses primary entrance so nonsmokers entering or exiting the premises are not confronted with a small cloud of secondhand smoke.

Other changes in the law include:

-- Restaurants or bars that allow smoking on their patios will have to make sure their smoking areas are not within 20 feet of the business's primary entrance.

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 »

• Jury awards punitive damages to smoker's daughter 

A jury on Monday recommended that cigarette maker Philip Morris USA should pay $13.8 million in punitive damages to the daughter of a longtime smoker who died of lung cancer.

The panel voted 9-3 in favor of Bullock's daughter Jodie Bullock, who is now the plaintiff in the case. Betty Bullock died of lung cancer in February 2003. She had sued Philip Morris in April 2001, accusing the company of fraud and product liability. A jury in 2002 recommended Philip Morris pay a record $28 billion in punitive damages to Bullock, but a judge later reduced the award to $28 million.

In 2008, the 2nd District Court of Appeal reversed the jury's decision and remanded the case for a new trial over the punitive damages. Philip Morris said the $28 million remained excessive.

However, the original jury recommended the tobacco company pay Bullock $750,000 in damages and $100,000 for pain and suffering, a verdict that still stands.

In a statement, Richmond, Virginia-based Altria Group Inc., which owns Philip Morris, said any amount given to Bullock's daughter is unwarranted. . . .

Plaintiff's attorney Michael Piuze said the jury's verdict amounted to a "slap on the wrist for Philip Morris."

"I liked it better when it was $28 billion," said Piuze, who represented Betty Bullock after she filed the lawsuit. "She wanted me to beat the crap out of Philip Morris, and we did it once."

Jump to full article »

Get your butts outa here! 

We've known forever that cigarette smoking is deadly. But so are the butts that smokers toss aside after their last puff, claim researchers from San Diego State University, the University of California-San Francisco and consulting groups Oxford Outcomes and the Varda Group.

That's why the team is leading an effort to have the butts considered toxic waste.

The researchers will present their findings today at the 137th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association, right here at the Philadelphia Marriott.

According to SDSU public health professor Rick Gersberg, cigarette butts allowed to soak in both fresh and salt water kill half the exposed fish in a standardized hazard assessment at a concentration of about one butt per liter. Further research is planned to identify the organic and inorganic chemicals in the cigarette butt that are lethal to fish and may be identified in natural environments.

The research is part of the Cigarette Butt Pollution Project funded by the California Tobacco Related Disease Research Program of the University of California.

Jump to full article »

• Scientists take aim at cigarettes 

Cigarettes don’t just kill people, they also kill fish.

So said San Diego State University researchers who are trying to build a case for labeling cigarette butts as toxic hazardous waste. That tag would prompt more rules to reduce their presence in the environment, though the bigger effect may be in public perception.

The San Diego scientists will present their conclusions today at the 137th annual meeting of the American Public Health Association in Philadelphia. They have submitted their results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

“It’s another way of looking at cigarettes as a societal hazard,” said Tom Novotny, a professor of public health at SDSU. “If we reframe the butts as toxic hazardous waste, that adds another opportunity to change the social acceptability of smoking.”

Robert Best, regional director of the smokers’ rights group Citizens Freedom Alliance in Ventura County, is skeptical.

“This is just another attack on smokers and an attack on the entire tobacco industry, including farmers and distributors, in the midst of an economic crisis,” Best said. “We already have littering laws in the state of California that say you cannot throw any trash out on the ground or in the waterways.” . . .

Novotny and his collaborators in the Cigarette Butt Pollution Project want more controls on what they call the most littered object on Earth. Trillions of cigarettes are smoked worldwide each year, and more than 1 million butts are collected annually during coastal cleanups in the United States, according to the project.

Novotny wondered about the butts’ effects on waterways. He turned to Rick Gersberg, a professor of public health at SDSU who specializes in water pollution.

Gersberg, a former smoker, was intrigued enough to review the scientific literature and determine that there were no published studies addressing cigarette butts and fish. . . .

Gersberg helped design an experiment in which he let smoked filters soak in containers of water for 24 hours. Then he put fish in the polluted water and monitored them for five days, part of what he called a standard hazard assessment.

Half the fish died in both salt and fresh water, Gersberg said.

Jump to full article »