Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
For some, the fun has been extinguished in the city's main gathering places.
Following a 3-to-1 vote, the City Council has banned smoking in the city's nine parks and playgrounds. Smoking has not yet been banned on the beach, but officials said they believe that could be the case in the future.
Officials said the measure was sparked by health concerns and ongoing discussions over the number of discarded cigarette butts found littering city streets and the newly dedicated Canalfront Park.
"The whole community put their efforts into that park," said Councilwoman Barbara Vaughan. "It shouldn't be desecrated with cigarette butts.
Lewes is the latest in a string of municipalities to ban smoking in the great outdoors. In 2008, Bethany Beach banned smoking in parks, playgrounds and the beach. Now, Ocean View officials are thinking about snuffing out smoking in John West Park.
Nationally, the idea is gaining momentum and is being considered in areas like New York City
Jump to full article »
In the 12 years since the settlement, Dosal has seen its share of the Florida market climb from less than 1 percent to more than 15 percent. It sells four brands: 305's, its most popular; DTC; Romy; and Competidora. Most sell for about $1.40 to $1.80 a pack retail. . . .
''We sell on price. End of story,'' Yolanda R. Nader, Dosal's chief executive and chief financial officer, says matter-of-factly.
Now, Dosal is afraid its business may be snuffed out by Big Tobacco's push to persuade Florida lawmakers to hit Dosal and other small cigarette makers with the same 50-cents-a-pack settlement fee.
If Dosal has to raise prices to cover the fee, it says, it will lose its cost advantage. Dosal says smokers will defect to other brands, including discount cigarettes made by Liggett Group, a unit of Miami's Vector Group, which reached its own settlement with Florida. Liggett doesn't charge the 50-cents-a-pack fee. . . .
Eliminating the price disparity between discount cigarettes and other brands means that smokers can't simply switch brands to avoid the increased cost, notes Eric Lindblom, director for policy research with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
''By closing the gap, there's nowhere for that smoker to go but to quit or cut back, and that's what we want smokers to do,'' Lindblom says.
Requiring the fee also would eliminate the need for the state to increase the excise tax on cigarettes by $1 a pack, Sutton says. Florida legislators are considering raising the tax to raise about $1 billion a year. Florida's excise tax is 33.9 cents, the fifth-lowest in the country.
After a fast-moving fire caused by a discarded cigarette claimed three lives near New Castle last year, state fire officials urged legislators to mandate fire-safe cigarettes in Delaware.
Beginning 12:01 a.m. Thursday, a new law will require all cigarettes sold in Delaware be reduced ignition propensity cigarettes -- better known as fire-safe cigarettes.
"This is a significant step in Delaware," Assistant State Fire Marshal Michael Chionchio said. "The goal for us is fire prevention."
Delaware joins 22 other states, plus the District of Columbia, in enacting fire-safe cigarette laws. New York was the first state to pass such a law in June 2004.
Laws in Delaware, Iowa, Oklahoma, Texas and Pennsylvania all take effect Thursday.
Another 15 states have laws that take effect later in 2009 and in 2010, while New Jersey and Maryland implemented fire-safe cigarette laws this year, according to the Coalition for Fire-Safe Cigarettes.
nsurance costs and survive a wheezing economy, some are scrutinizing their employees' off-duty behavior, firing those who smoke, tacking surcharges onto overweight workers' health plans and even dismissing people for having an off-duty drink.
Such practices are raising claims of unwarranted intrusion, a few cries of illegal discrimination and warnings of fraying liberties. "If it's your own business and you can't do what you want, that's communism," said Mill Creek resident Helen Muhlmichl, a nonsmoker and smoking opponent who has even lost a father to lung cancer.
But without a change in the law, experts see little prospect of bringing a successful legal challenge in Delaware.
Twenty-nine states have laws specifically protecting workers from being fired for off-duty smoking, but Delaware isn't among them. . . .
employers mainly are targeting smokers. In part, society's crusade against smoking has made smokers politically "safe" to persecute, Siegel said.
Governments and businesses routinely impose increasing restrictions on where they may light up -- even when second-hand smoke is not a risk. Cash-strapped states, including Delaware, have come to realize that raising smokers' taxes will cause the least squawking and minimal sympathy.
"It's a voluntary act," Sean McDevitt, partner at Pepper Hamilton in Wilmington, said of smoking. "Let's face it, we push them outside to smoke on rainy days. ... I think there is little pity on smokers."
Some companies offer smoking cessation programs and other assistance before taking more drastic measures. . . .
Delaware's legal and legislative atmosphere does not seem conducive to creating more restrictions on employers
Effective Friday, Feb. 1, smoking indoors is prohibited by law in the state of Maryland. That means bars, restaurants, clubs and hotels, as well as government-operated public transportation, are smoke-free areas where repeat offenders get stuck with hefty fines.
"Secondhand smoke is a true health hazard," said Claire Mullins, spokesperson for the American Lung Association of Maryland. "Limiting it in public places like bars and restaurants is just another step to improve public health.
"This is a public health issue, it's not a civil liberties issue," she added.
The smoking ban also falls roughly at the same time as an increased cigarette tax, going from $1 to $2 per pack, which took effect Jan. 1. . . .
However, Maryland also earned a "D" for tobacco prevention spending and an "F" for youth access. . . .
Smoking bans are nothing new to the area, particularly in Delaware.
In 2002, the state enacted the Clean Indoor Air Act . . .
Restaurateurs now say that several years into the ban, indoor smoking is practically a non-issue. But, that's not to say there wasn't an initial impact.
a new study from Stanford University suggests that secondhand smoke — even outdoors — is more dangerous than previously thought.
The study by Stanford researchers Wayne Ott, Neil Klepeis and Paul Switzer measured the amount of floating particles given off by a burning cigarette at distances from 18 inches to beyond 6 feet.
And although city leaders have backed away from banning smoking in Belmont, Mayor Coralin Feierbach said the study backs up their belief that stiffer restrictions are needed.
By turning secondhand smoke into a public nuisance like loud noise, Feierbach and the council hope to give Belmont police the tools to protect residents from wafting carcinogens. The council is still trying to determine the scope of the ordinance
NEW CASTLE, Del. - One after another, the cars pull into the parking lot of an unassuming strip mall just a short jaunt from the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
Pennsylvania plates, Jersey plates. Barely a Delaware tag in the bunch.
The destination? The Delaware Tobacco Outlet, just one of many such emporiums in this tiny state.
The lure: smokes that are a whole lot cheaper than those closer to home, thanks to Delaware's low cigarette tax.
"I try to come once every two weeks," said Tracy Major, 46, a laborer from Salem County who looked pretty happy with his score of Marlboro Lights. "It's two for the price of one."
Just as New Jersey is the place for Pennsylvanians to go for lower liquor prices, Delaware is a regular port of call for smokers from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland, and even New York.
Do the math. . . .
Compare that to Delaware, where the tax is a mere 55 cents a pack, although Gov. Ruth Minner would like to raise it to $1.
The state Supreme Court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by two foreign governments against the tobacco industry.
Panama and the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo, seeking to recover expenses for the medical care of sick smokers, appealed last year after a Superior Court judge said they were not seeking damages for personal injuries suffered by smokers and they failed to establish that tobacco products were the proximate cause of their alleged economic injuries. . . .
In a decision handed down Friday, the Supreme Court agreed that the lawsuit should be dismissed, but not for the reasons cited by Cooch. . . .
The real issue, the justices said, is whether the tobacco companies owe a direct duty to insurers or health care providers of smokers, a theory that other courts have rejected.
An attorney representing Panama and the Brazilian state of Sao Paulo asked the state Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn the dismissal of a lawsuit against the tobacco industry.
The two foreign governments, seeking to recover expenses for the medical care of sick smokers, turned to Delaware last year after a judge in Louisiana said Louisiana was not the proper forum for a lawsuit initially filed in 1998.
New Castle County Superior Court Judge Richard Cooch dismissed the lawsuit in June, ruling that the two governments were not seeking damages for personal injuries suffered by smokers and had failed to establish that tobacco products were the proximate cause of their alleged economic injuries.
Smoking bans are snuffing out casino revenue, but more marketing and investment can lure customers back, a panel of experts told a gambling conference.
Since the Canadian province of Ontario imposed a smoking ban in public places in May, casinos along the border with the United States have suffered a revenue drop of 10 percent to more than 20 percent, said Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. vice president Karl Gagesch.
"Short-term pain," Gagesch told the conference Tuesday. "Long term, we think we're going to be OK."
The largest impact has been at Casino Windsor, which laid off more than 300 employees over the summer as American smokers stayed in Michigan and New York to gamble, he said. Visitation was also hurt by a strong Canadian dollar and tougher border security, he said. . . .
A similar smoking ban at three racinos, or race tracks that also offer slot machines, in Delaware also had a negative impact, with slot machine revenue down 10 percent to 19 percent since the ban was imposed in 2002, said Richard Thalheimer, an economist and president Thalheimer Research Associates.
Slot revenue has since rebounded, he noted, mainly because of the introduction of more slot machines.
Karen Blumenfeld, a member of the New Jersey Group Against Smoking Pollution (GASP), heralded the panel's openness to adapting to a wave of anti-smoking legislation sweeping the country.
"It's not the gloom and doom," she said. "I'm very relieved that the industry is now embracing these changes."
Public health leaders at the American Legacy Foundation(R) applauded today's decision by the Delaware Supreme Court, which found that the foundation's bold and effective youth smoking prevention advertising campaign, truth(R), does not vilify or personally attack tobacco companies or their employees. This decision was the result of an appeal made by Lorillard Tobacco Company, after the Delaware Chancery Court found in favor of the foundation in August 2005. This Supreme Court decision could finally mean the end of a contentious dispute that threatened to close the foundation's doors and end the only effective national youth tobacco prevention campaign. . . .
"Today's decision means that the life-saving truth(R) will continue to prevent youth from starting to smoke," said General William Sorrell, Attorney General of Vermont and the Chair of the American Legacy Foundation's board of directors. "The public health community and America's youth have told us truth(R) works, and today the Delaware Supreme Court has given us a green light to continue our efforts against the nation's number-one cause of preventable death." In its ruling today, the Delaware Supreme Court reached the following conclusions:
"ALF has designed the ads to inform its target audience of manipulative marketing techniques because published research has demonstrated that these types of messages are the most effective ones for discouraging the rebellious, anti-authoritarian segment of young people who otherwise are the most likely segment of the population to begin smoking."
"We agree with Lorillard that the ads do refer to the tobacco companies or their executives and in one instance specifically to Lorillard. However, we conclude that Lorillard's appeal is without merit because the campaign's advertisements do not satisfy the plain meaning of 'vilification' or 'personal attacks'."
"The advertisements are not invidious, disparaging, offensive, belligerent, nor fiercely or severely critical. Nor are they denouncements that are both unfounded and abusive or slanderous. The tone of the youth in the advertisements is usually expressly friendly or helpful, even if implicitly drawing attention to unflattering facts about past actions of tobacco companies or their employees. The youth's messages, and thus the advertisements themselves, do not qualify as personal attacks or vilifications."
The [truth] advertisements are not invidious, disparaging, offensive, belligerent, nor fiercely or severely critical. Nor are they denouncements that are both unfounded and abusive or slanderous . . . even if implicitly drawing attention to unflattering facts about past actions of tobacco companies or their employees. . . . Merely drawing attention to the past conduct of tobacco companies through innocuous and even helpful-sounding offers such as those heard in 'Shredder', 'Hypnosis', 'Lie Detector,' and 'Dog Walker', is not a personal attack or vilification prohibited by the MSA.Delaware Supreme Court Decision in the Lorillard v. Legacy lawsuit.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled Monday that the ads created by the Washington-based American Legacy Foundation did not violate a 1998 agreement between the tobacco industry and the states.
That agreement led to restrictions on tobacco marketing and the creation of the foundation, which the tobacco companies fund through their payments to the states.
The agreement stated that the foundation could not vilify or personally attack tobacco companies or executives, something Lorillard argued the foundation has been doing in its ads.
Monday's ruling upheld a lower court decision that found the ads did not violate the agreement.
The fire at a Wilmington high-rise that left 155 people homeless began when a resident drinking and smoking crack cocaine over an open flame discarded some smoking materials in his apartment, fire inspectors announced Wednesday.
Quentin B. Bruce, 59, who lived in No. 601 at the Crestview Apartments, where the fire began, is charged with 13 felony counts of first-degree reckless endangering in the blaze. It injured 22 people, including six firefighters. . . .
In the hours preceding the blaze, fire investigators concluded, Bruce and another resident were drinking, smoking crack over an open flame and smoking cigarettes in the area where the blaze started, according to court records
The fire began on the bedroom floor of apartment No. 601, next to the bed and near the building's south wall, the fire marshal determined. The fire was ruled accidental and the cause listed as discarded smoking materials. . . .
he got buckets of water and tried to extinguish them.
He had no idea what started the fire, but it wasn't a cigarette, he said. "I had it almost out
Lorillard Tobacco Co. Wednesday asked the Delaware Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that the "truth" series of anti-smoking ads does not "vilify" the tobacco industry.
The maker of Newport, Kent, True and Old Gold cigarette brands says the ad campaign, which is targeted at children and teenagers, violates the bargain tobacco companies made in 1998 to settle lawsuits from 46 state attorneys general, an agreement that called for the industry to pay for anti-smoking ads.
Lorillard wants to strip funding from American Legacy Foundation, the non-profit organization behind the "truth" ads and the recipient of $1.5 billion in funds under the settlement. According to the company, the ads breach restrictions against vilification and personal attacks contained in the settlement.
"We are pursuing this lawsuit because we want to get what we bargained for," Ronald Milstein, general counsel for Lorillard, a unit of the Loews Corp. (LTR), told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview after the hearing. . . .
"If they (Lorillard) were to have an all-out win in this court, that would basically shut us down," American Legacy Chief Executive Cheryl Healton told Dow Jones Newswires in an interview before Wednesday's debate before the Delaware Supreme Court.
THE Lorillard Tobacco Company argued in court yesterday that an antismoking group had violated an agreement by using its ad campaigns to attack the tobacco industry and its employees while trying to persuade teenagers not to smoke.
In an hourlong hearing, the Delaware Supreme Court heard an appeal of a lower court decision last year that rejected Lorillard's claim and upheld the position of the group, the American Legacy Foundation, that the ads were not only truthful but effective.
In a five-year study, the group said it found that the percentage of teenagers 18 and younger who smoked dropped to 16 percent, from 20 percent.
Justice Randy J. Holland said the full bench panel of five judges would rule later.
At issue is Lorillard's contention that "vilification" and "personal attack" against the industry were expressly prohibited when four tobacco companies and 46 state attorneys general signed a $206 billion settlement in 1998. . . .
In yesterday's hearing, a lawyer for Lorillard, Jim Phillips, said Judge Lamb's "unprecedented and unworkable method" of defining terms introduced uncertainty into contract law in Delaware, a state whose judicial system is valued by corporations because of the certainty of its business law. More than half of the Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware.
But Justice Carolyn Berger said that Lorillard itself "created some holes" in drafting the agreement by failing to define the terms. She compared the company's request for relief from the "parade of horribles" of unpredictable contract law to the story of a man who murders his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan. . . .
After the hearing, a senior vice president for Lorillard, Ronald Milstein, said the company wanted to replace the American Legacy Foundation unless it changed its management and culture. He said its assets should be transferred to another foundation that would honor the disputed condition of the settlement agreement .