Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Alan Pape doesn't like going into smokers' apartments. But as the maintenance mechanic for the North Bend City/Coos-Curry Housing Authorities, it's part of the job.
"When you have to stand in them for two or three hours at times and breathe in second-hand smoke -- I know it's not good for me," Pape said.
By March, Pape won't have to worry about nicotine-stained walls or smelling like an ash tray at the end of the day.
The two boards of commissioners for the housing authorities adopted a no-indoor-smoking policy for the apartments and buildings they own. The Woodland Apartments Preservation Inc. and Powers Housing Development Inc. -- apartments managed by the housing authorities -- also passed the same policy. The agencies provide section 8 and low-income housing North Bend, Coos Bay, Myrtle Point, Coquille and Port Orford. Woodland and Powers have units in Empire and Powers. Ned Beman, the executive director of the Housing Authorities, said the policy will likely impact 475 residents. He estimated that about 21 percent smoke.
The policy bans smokers from lighting up inside units or other buildings owned by the agencies. Those who smoke will be allowed to -- but outside at least 10 feet from a neighbor's door. It goes into effect on March 1.
Jump to full article »
A multimillion-dollar award from Philip Morris to the estate of a Salem woman will hinge on a narrow legal point argued Monday in the Oregon Supreme Court.
At stake is a 2002 jury award of $150 million in punitive damages against the cigarette maker, later reduced by the trial judge to $100 million, and then reversed in 2006 by the Oregon Court of Appeals.
On a 5-4 vote, the appeals court upheld a verdict of fraud and negligence against Philip Morris, and an award of $169,000 in compensatory damages to the family of Michelle Schwarz, who died of lung cancer in 1999 at age 53.
Schwarz's family argued in Multnomah County Circuit Court that Philip Morris had fraudulently marketed its low-tar Merit brand, which Schwarz switched to in 1976, as safer than regular cigarettes.
But the appeals court ruled the jury should not have considered the harm to individuals outside Oregon in deciding the amount of punitive damages.
The appeals court ordered new proceedings in circuit court to determine only those damages, but the case was appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court.
A lawyer representing the Schwarz family, Maureen Leonard of Portland, said Monday that "more reprehensible conduct (by Philip Morris) justifies higher punitive damages."
The state of Oregon has gone to court to block the sale of electronic cigarettes on the same day that a New York county banned their sale to minors.
Oregon Attorney General John Kroger and Jon Cooper, majority leader of the Suffolk County Legislature on Long Island, N.Y., said Tuesday the lawsuit and the ban are both the first of their kind in the nation.
Electronic cigarettes are battery-powered devices typically made out of plastic designed to look like a traditional cigarette, including a light that simulates its glow.
But instead of tobacco that burns and creates smoke, the "e-cigarettes" use a heating element to vaporize water mixed with ingredients in a disposable cartridge, which can include liquid nicotine.
Oregon Attorney General John Kroger today filed a lawsuit against Smoking Everywhere, alleging that the Florida-based "electronic cigarette" company made false health claims about its nicotine delivery device and targeted children with sweet flavors such as bubblegum, chocolate and cookies ‘n' cream.
Electronic cigarettes are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and some contain known carcinogens.
"It's my duty to protect the public from products that are falsely advertised as safe," Attorney General Kroger said.
Oregon is the only state that has taken legal action against e-cigarette importers and retailers. Oregon recently reached legal settlements with three retailers prohibiting them from selling e-cigarettes in the state until they meet state and federal standards. Oregon also reached an agreement with another e-cigarette company, Sottera, Inc., the national distributor of NJOY, which prohibits it from doing business in Oregon until local and national standards are met.
Smoking Everywhere refused a similar settlement offer.
The Oregon Department of Justice filed two settlements Thursday that prevent two national travel store chains from selling "electronic cigarettes" in Oregon.
The action is the first of its kind in the country and prevents Oregonians from buying potentially dangerous products that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has yet to approve.
"When products threaten the health and safety of Oregonians, we will take action," said Mary Williams, deputy attorney general. "If companies want to sell electronic cigarettes to consumers, they have to be able to prove they are safe."
The affected travel store chains, Pilot Travel Centers, which has seven centers in Oregon, and TA Operating, which has four centers in Oregon, both sell "NJOY" brand electronic cigarettes. . . .
Despite FDA issued "Import Alerts" against NJOY and other brands of electronic cigarettes, and despite the fact that the U.S. Customs Service detained several shipments of these devices, sales of electronic cigarettes continue throughout the United States.
The Oregon Attorney Generals office is investigating a Florida-based company that operates Electronic Cigarette kiosks at local malls.
The company, called Smoking Everywhere, Inc. is coming under fire for allegations it falsely markets the product and allegations it markets to children.
“We need to have proof that these products are safe.” Said John Kroger, state attorney general. . . .
as strawberry and mint.
On the company’s website there is a glowing endorsement from celebrities Danny Boneduce and Jose Canseco as they appeared on the Howard Stern Show.
“I mean, kids can still look cool, with these cigarettes, “ Said Artie Lange, comedian on the show.
Electronic cigarettes have gained support from those people who don’t want second-hand smoke. . . .
NewsChannel 8 took an undercover camera to a kiosk.
We did see a child listening to the sales pitch but she was accompanied by her mother.
There also is a sign that clearly reads the products are for adults 18 and up.
A report released on Monday by the Oregon Tobacco Prevention and Education Program showed that cigarette sales have dropped to their lowest level ever, falling from nearly 55 to almost 50 packs per capita in the fiscal year ending June 2008.
"Over this last year, we've seen a decrease in consumption, so that's exciting," said Cathryn Cushing, spokeswoman for the state Public Health Division. "We've seen an increase in the number of folks who've quit smoking, and that's exciting, too, but there's still a lot of work to do."
The report is encouraging on the home front, with 89 percent of households banning smoking, a 2 percent increase last year.
She lived in Japan in 1989 and 1990 as part of a government employee exchange. The Japanese carried pocket ashtrays to temporarily store cigarette butts. She didn't see many on the ground.
Somehow, Schallert came to realize, generally anti-litter Americans have concluded that cigarette butts aren't litter at all.
She's out to change that.
Legislation seeks a fine or community service
Schallert, backed by Oregon Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, is behind House Bill 2676. The half-page bill would make it a Class B misdemeanor to knowingly toss a butt, cigarette or cigar.
The penalty would be a fine or, perhaps more karmicly consistent, community service that includes clearing property of cigarettes, cigars and filters "unlawfully deposited on the property."
"I see Oregon as an environmental leader, with the beach bill, with the bottle bill," says Schallert, 56. "I'd like to reach a consensus that (tossing cigarette butts) is not OK. If you're the person cleaning it up, you really notice it."
3.2 million butts picked up in 2008 at beaches, waterways
Oregon would be the first state in the nation to ban tobacco possession among those younger than 21 under a bill taken up Wednesday by a legislative committee.
House Bill 2974 would increase from 18 to 21 the age at which it would be legal to buy, smoke, chew or otherwise possess tobacco products. It was heard by the House Human Services Committee, where bill sponsor and state Rep. Betty Komp, D-Woodburn, said it would have the effect of deterring smoking among teenagers.
She said it would be harder for young people to pass themselves off as 21 than as 18-year-olds, and that younger teens and preteens probably would put off thinking about smoking if the age limit was raised.
According to the American Lung Association, more than 4.5 million U.S. adolescents smoke cigarettes. Among smokers of all ages, 90 percent started before turning 21.
Komp said she is eager for Oregon to chart new territory, setting a higher age limit than 19 -- currently the strictest in some states -- when it comes to tobacco possession.
From The Oregonian of Monday, Feb. 22, 1999 -- Local Smoking suit seeks millions: The family of a Portland lung cancer victim wants Philip Morris Inc. to pay $110 million in damages
From The Oregonian of Monday, Feb. 22, 1999 -- Effort to pin tobacco ills on firms alights in Oregon: A $110 million suit against Philip Morris opens this week, and the case could be the next in a series of verdicts against cigarette-makers
"While we had hoped for a different outcome, the Supreme Court has decided not to review a narrow procedural ruling by the state court. Today's decision does not impact the court's earlier decisions on punitive damages," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA. "Importantly, the Court did not disturb its 2007 Williams decision which held that a jury may not impose punitive damages for harm caused to anyone other than the plaintiff in a particular case," added Garnick.
The Court's decision, however, does not end the dispute, which has been ongoing for more than a decade. Oregon state law requires that sixty percent of any punitive damages award be paid to the state. Philip Morris USA believes that the Master Settlement Agreement, to which Oregon is a party, precludes the state from collecting any punitive damages award from the company. Oregon and Philip Morris USA are parties to a proceeding in Oregon state court that seeks a determination of whether the MSA bars the state from collecting punitive damages. If Philip Morris USA prevails, the company would be obligated to pay only the remaining forty percent of the punitive damages award to the plaintiff in this case.
The Supreme Court chose on Tuesday, after examining the issue for the third time, not to disturb a punitive damages verdict now totaling more than $150 million, won by the widow of a heavy smoker who died of lung cancer. The Court dismissed a new appeal by Philip Morris USA, saying it had “improvidently granted” review last June. The case, heard on Dec. 3, was Philip Morris USA v. Williams (07-1216). . . .
The marathon, however, apparently is not over yet. Philip Morris, at an earlier stage in the case, reserved the right to challenge a state law that requires that 60 percent of a punitive verdict goes to the state of Oregon. The company’s argument against that is that Oregon has achieved all of the proceeds it is entitled to have under the global settlement of a group of states’ lawsuit against the industry.
Mrs. Williams’ lawyers, backed by the Oregon attorney general, have argued that the tobacco settlement only applied to that specific case, and thus would have no effect on the verdict in her case.
Philip Morris said Tuesday, after the new decision, that it was pursuing this issue in a proceeding now in state court.
The Supreme Court today dealt a blow to Philip Morris, saying it would not decide the cigarette-maker's challenge of a punitive damages award brought by the widow of a longtime smoker that now is worth nearly $150 million.
The court's decision, announced in a one-sentence order, was a surprising and anticlimactic ending to a case that has bounded back and forth through the judicial system for nearly a decade. When an Oregon jury awarded Mayola Williams nearly $80 million following the death of her husband Jesse, it was the largest award of its kind.
Even though the justices have strongly implied that the award was too large and twice sent the case back west, the Oregon Supreme Court found reasons to leave it as it was. After the Oregon justices declined to change its decision for a second time, lawyers for Philip Morris petitioned the high court to "vindicate" its authority.
Instead, the court today said it should not have accepted the case for a third time, and in the language of the court, dismissed the case as "improvidently granted."
Because the case was argued in early December and the court issued its decision only today, it suggests the justices had trouble coming together on how to solve the legal issues raised. . . .
But the justices said that maybe the Oregon court had a point, after all.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who wrote the court's 2007 decision in the case, said he thought at first that Oregon was giving the court the "runaround." But after studying the case more closely, he said, "I'm not sure that I think that now."
It wasn't too long ago -- just four years, in fact -- that anti-smoking legislation was all but dead before it was drafted. In 2005, tobacco lobbyists and a Republican-controlled House managed to kill a ban on smoking in bars, a 10-cent-a-pack cigarette tax and "fire-safe" cigarettes.
But, as most any politician will tell you, a lot can change in four years.
At least six bills that target smoking and tobacco are making their way through the Capitol this session, and tobacco lobbyist Mark Nelson -- one of the most influential in Salem -- is finding that this time around he has to pick his battles carefully.
"Every years seems to be tobacco's turn in the barrel," Nelson said. But "I think there is more (legislation) this year than there has been in previous years."
The cigarette pitch demands a second look.
Two ripped, rakish men and one lean, pristine hound pause, inexplicably, in the cool shallows of a calm green sea.
"How gay is this ad?" R.E. Szego, a Portland tobacco-prevention specialist, asks when she sees such an image.
It's a sincere question, not a slam.
Wooed for years by tobacco companies -- who lavish free merchandise on their bars and clubs, sponsor their events and advertise heavily in their publications -- gays, lesbians and bisexuals remain hooked on cigarettes, even as the general population smokes less.
But public health specialists are optimistic that a new ban on smoking in Oregon bars will cause a decline in the smoking rates of gays and lesbians, who tend to pick up the habit as teens coming to terms with stigma surrounding their sexual identity.
"If you were coming up gay, it used to be the only place you got to meet was in a bar," says Michael Kaplan, executive director of Cascade AIDS Project and a former pack-a-day smoker. "If you wanted to fit in, you'd smoke."
About one in three gay, lesbian and bisexual Oregonians smoke . . .
Tobacco foes call the cigarette companies' marketing techniques "gay vague." It's a love-that-dare-not-speak-its-name style of advertising heavy on images of hearty women fishing in the woods and beefy bartenders leveling come-hither gazes at ... no one in particular.