Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Earlier this year, we convened a 15-member committee of students and staff to review UT Arlington's current policy regarding tobacco use on campus and to explore the possibility of advancing a tobacco-free initiative for the University.
Jean Hood, vice president for human resources, chaired the Tobacco-Free Campus Initiative Committee. For almost eight months, the committee conducted a thorough assessment of issues and attitudes related to the use of tobacco products on campus. . . .
In September, the committee issued its findings to the campus community and forwarded its final recommendations to me. After the final report was issued, the committee welcomed additional input and responses from students, faculty, and staff. We received 205 responses.
Having weighed all of the information and input on the matter, I am satisfied that the committee has thoroughly researched and considered this issue. Therefore, I accept and concur with the committee's recommendations to make UT Arlington a tobacco-free campus.
We are not telling anyone they can no longer use tobacco. That was never the intent, and it is not the case. Use of tobacco products is a personal choice. With the new policy, we're simply saying that the use of tobacco on campus will not be permissible and that we will become a tobacco-free campus by August 1, 2011.
Meanwhile, during the next 21 months leading up to August 1, 2011, we will address issues of enforcement. During this time, we also will be more vigilant in enforcing our current policy, which prohibits smoking within 50 feet of any campus building.
The one exception--and this is the only element of the recommendations that I would like to clarify--is that we will allow individuals to use tobacco products in their personal vehicles, provided they do so with the windows closed and properly dispose of waste material. No use of tobacco products will be permitted in University-owned vehicles, regardless of whether they are on campus or off campus.
Additionally, I am pleased to report that the University is offering support for anyone who wishes to stop using tobacco.
Jump to full article »
37. As a direct and proximate result of smoking cigarettes manufactured and sold by one or more Defendants, Plaintiff suffered from one or more of the diseases and medical
6
conditions described, including emphysema/COPD, which was caused by her addiction to cigarettes that contain nicotine and each of which manifested during the class period.
COUNT I: STRICT LIABILITY . . .
COUNT II: FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT . . .
COUNT III: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT . . .
COUNT IV: NEGLIGENCE . . .
COUNT V: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY . . .
COUNT VI: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
Philip Morris USA said today it will seek further review of a jury verdict awarding approximately $56 million in compensatory damages and $244 million in punitive damages.
The verdict came in the trial of a so-called Engle case following a 2006 Supreme Court decision that decertified a class action but allowed former class members to file individual lawsuits.
"From the beginning, this case was marked by a fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional trial plan that allowed the jury to rely on findings by a prior jury that have no connection to the plaintiff," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client Services senior vice president and associate general counsel, speaking on behalf of Philip Morris USA.
"Today's verdict was the result of numerous erroneous rulings by the trial judge that allowed the jury to hear extensive evidence totally unrelated to the individual smoker
Backers of a statewide smoking ban say they expect to be outspent by opponents in what's expected to be a hard-fought campaign after deciding Thursday not to appeal a judge's ruling. The decision makes the prospect of a November vote more likely.
However, Attorney General Marty Jackley says he and Secretary of State Chris Nelson will meet today to discuss a possible appeal. A decision is likely within a week.
Jackley said the American Cancer Society's decision not to appeal "is certainly a consideration" as he and Nelson decide the state's course. . . .
If, as Don Rose suggests, the state follows the cancer society's lead and decides not to appeal, the 2010 referendum will follow. Opponents of the ban such as Rose say this is what they've wanted all along. Rose owns Shenanigan's Pub, is a district director of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota and was a key organizer of the referendum petition drive that ended up before Trandahl after the Cancer Society challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.
"A vote of the people is what they should have done in the first place," Rose said.
"Our deal was we always wanted to be able to let the people vote," added Mark O'Neill, president of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota.
A Broward Circuit Court Jury returned a $300 million verdict against Philip Morris USA within hours of closing arguments this afternoon in favor of Cindy Naugle, the sister of Jim Naugle, a former mayor of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Naugle, 61, who stopped smoking in 1993, smoked her first cigarette in 1968 when she was twenty years old because she thought they "made her look older." She told the jury that had she known then what the tobacco companies already knew, but had concealed, namely that nicotine is a highly-additive drug and cigarettes were considered by Philip Morris to be a "drug delivery device," she never would have taken that first puff. The jury assessed $56.6 million against Philip Morris for Naugle's past and future medical expenses as well as for her pain and suffering. It also assessed punitive damages in the amount of $244 million to punish the company for its misconduct. The jury also found Ms. Naugle was 10% responsible because of her decision to start smoking.
Ms. Naugle, who tried unsuccessfully to quit smoking for many years, now needs 24-hour oxygen and must travel in a wheelchair because the simple act of walking leaves her exhausted. "Cindy admitted her fault to the jury," said her attorney, Robert W. Kelley of the Fort Lauderdale law firm Kelley/Uustal. "But Philip Morris refused to accept any responsibility for her emphysema, even though she was an addicted customer for 25 years," he added. . . .
Kelley went on to say: "The cigarette companies managed to hide the truth about their product for a long time, but the truth is out now. And when the jury finally hears the truth about what these companies knew and when they knew it, they almost always side with the addicted smokers, most of whom started smoking as teenagers before there were any warning labels on cigarette packs." Kelley predicts the industry is in for a long series of losses because "most Americans are fed-up with corporate fraud and misconduct."
Reflecting on the existing scientific research on second hand smoke exposure outdoors, William Saletan of Slate.com sifts through the most relevant points from two major studies on the subject (the 2006 California Air Resources Board study, and a 2007 study from Stanford). Among the findings: outdoors, second hand smoke levels vary widely and quickly, depend on the individual's distance from a smoker (farther than 6.5 feet or 2 meters, generally reduces exposure to "background" levels), are influenced by how confined the outdoor space is (if there are walls or fences), and the concentration of smokers in a given area. The data, Saletan concludes, point to the need for a measured approach for crafting policy to reduce second hand smoke exposure outdoors. He writes:
"If you want to argue for parkwide smoking bans based on asthma or on an analogy to noise pollution, go ahead and make that case. But let's not cloud that debate by invoking the general harm of secondhand smoke. Studies of secondhand smoke have indeed moved outdoors. Their findings support restrictions on lighting up within a few feet of other people. But they don't warrant more than that."
A new study published in the November issue of the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene may contribute to the debate. Researchers from the University of Georgia measured second hand smoke exposure among people sitting in the outdoor areas of bars and restaurants where indoor smoking was banned in the city of Athens, Georgia. . . .
generally speaking, hanging out in an outdoor smoking area exposes you to less second hand smoke than being in an indoor, confined space with smokers, and the more space you have between yourself and smokers, the lower levels of exposure you will have. So, this particular study doesn't ring the death knell for outdoor smoking. But, the researchers point out, wielding the official trump card of the public health argument:
Although the increment in cotinine concentrations and, thus, the [second hand smoke] exposure levels were relatively low at the sites of interest, the current view is that there is no level of personal exposure to [second hand smoke] that can be regarded as safe. This study demonstrates the ongoing exposure of nonsmokers to [second hand smoke] outside restaurants and bars, and the limitations of indoor smoking bans alone in protecting the public from exposure to [second hand smoke] outside these establishments.
In other words, the movement to ban smoking in outdoor spaces is here to stay.
The freshly remodeled Gristedes supermarket on 25 University Place has expanded its space, adding new sections for beer, hot food, a salad bar, bakery and organic products, all looking like crowd-pleasers beneath Thanksgiving decorations strung above the aisles.
But cigarettes are no longer on sale here -- seemingly a sign of the times in this upscale Greenwich Village neighborhood near New York University.
"We haven't had them for some time now," said an assistant manager who identified himself only as Thomas. He noted that cigarettes are available at other Gristedes stores in New York (about 20 still carry them), even though he believes the demand is down. The main reason for the decline in tobacco sales, another Gristedes manager said, is that "people know where they can get them elsewhere" for half the price that conventional retailers in New York charge -- upward of $95 per carton, with $4.25 in state and city taxes tacked on.
He was alluding to untaxed tobacco sold on Indian reservations, a subject that has bedeviled convenience-store operators and New York governors from Cuomo to Paterson.
Led by its Greek-born owner and C.E.O., John Catsimatidis, a longtime New York City mayoral wannabe who smokes an occasional cigar, Gristedes Foods Inc. has claimed in protracted litigation that Indian merchants on two Eastern Long Island reservations are luring away New York customers, and even helping to fund organized crime gangs and terrorist groups like Hezbollah with bulk sales, a charge some politicians dismiss as absurd but others solemnly repeat. . . .
Since he cares so much about health, why does he sell any cigarettes at his grocery stores?
"There is such a thing as freedom of choice," the mogul replied. "I lecture my wife, who smokes, and tell her, Why don't you just have one or two instead of more? It's like what the Greek philosophers say: Everything in moderation."
Philip Morris USA (PM USA) filed lawsuits against ten retailers selling counterfeit versions of the company's Marlboro� brand cigarettes in New York and New Jersey.
"The New York metropolitan area continues to be a lucrative market for counterfeit and contraband cigarette smugglers," said Joe Murillo, vice president and associate general counsel, Altria Client Services, speaking on behalf of PM USA. "High excise taxes, coupled with New York state's lack of effective tax enforcement, only makes the problem worse," added Murillo.
"These lawsuits are the latest in a series of filings by Philip Morris USA aimed at combating the sale of counterfeit cigarettes in New York and New Jersey," said Murillo. Since May 2009, Philip Morris has filed lawsuits against 27 retail locations in New York and New Jersey for selling counterfeit Marlboro� brand cigarettes
In addition to violating many trademark laws, counterfeit cigarettes are almost always sold without the appropriate federal and state excise tax. The counterfeit cigarettes purchased from the retailers named in today's suits bore no tax stamp or a counterfeit tax stamp. As a result, the applicable excise taxes were not paid. . . .
Eastern District of New York
Maria’s Deli Grocery 143-20 101 Avenue, Richmond Hills, NY 11419
Loveras Grocery 996 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11225
Southern District of New York
Aloshe Mini Market 1889 Guerlain Street, Bronx, NY 10461
El Barrio Grocery Deli 39 West 183rd Street, Bronx, NY 10453
Fernandez Grocery Corp. 1665 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10029
Philip Morris USA is accusing 10 New York and New Jersey retailers of selling counterfeit Marlboro cigarettes.
The nation's largest tobacco company announced the federal lawsuits against the retailers Thursday.
American Cancer Society South Dakota Government Relations Director Jennifer Stalley says, “It is appropriate that today, on the 34th annual American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out—a day dedicated to helping smokers quit—the American Cancer Society, along with more than fifty diverse public health, business and medical groups, will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."
“We are confident that the vast majority of South Dakotans support this law and that by this time next year –the 35th annual Great American Smoke Out—South Dakota will be a smoke free state.”
Officials for the American Cancer Society in South Dakota say they won't appeal a court decision that will now send a smoking ban in South Dakota bars, restaurants, casinos and other businesses to the vote of the people in 2010.
The announcement by the Society's government relations director Jennifer Stally came on the 34th annaul American Cancer Society Great American Smoke Out Day. Stalley said in a news release that the Cancer Society "will begin in earnest our statewide effort to support the smoke free law on the November 2010 ballot and ensure that no one has to choose between their health and their job in our great state."
Starting Thursday, Kentucky’s two largest universities are declaring themselves smoke-free, drastically restricting cigarette smoking to create healthier campuses.
The University of Kentucky is banning all tobacco products anywhere on campus, while the University of Louisville is restricting smoking to designated outside areas, with plans for a complete campus ban by next November.
To kick off the ban, information and support booths will be set up in front of the Student Activity Center on the Belknap Campus and the Kornhauser Library on the Health Science Campus from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. And U of L is providing free nicotine patches or gum to students and employees who take part in smoking cessation classes.
Even so, some U of L students are complaining that those preparations have been too hurried, especially when compared with the 11 months of groundwork at UK.
There seem to be two Dr. Alan Blums.
One is a tweedy academic — the family medicine professor and director of the Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society at the University of Alabama who has devoted his dead-serious career to the prevention of tobacco-induced illnesses.
The other is the self-described “Bart Simpson of the anti-smoking movement” — the alter ago who donned a fake pharmacist’s lab coat Wednesday to help set up “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” an exhibition on tobacco advertising that opens today in the Buffalo Museum of Science. . . .
The approach reflects a lesson learned in 1977 when Blum, then a Miami hospital intern and nascent anti-smoking crusader, lost a contentious radio talk show debate with a tobacco industry spokesman while the host, Larry King, blew smoke in Blum’s face.
Ever since, “I’ve tried to bring some humor and satire to a depressing issue that many people take very seriously,” Blum said. The strategy has included “house calls” to tobacco festivals and “anything else we could do to ridicule the brand names.”
Satirical references abound in “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” which was gleaned from a trove of tobacco advertising and promotional materials that Blum started collecting 15 years ago and now fills 2,500 boxes in his Alabama center.
He started by buying items distributed by cigarette companies that a Connecticut store owner had accumulated over two decades. “He must’ve thought it had collectible value, but it cost more to ship it [to Alabama] than I paid for it,” Blum said.
From the outset his goal was to mount an exhibition that underscored the everyday irony of seeing tobacco products on the shelves of pharmacies that dispense drugs prescribed to combat cancer, heart disease, hypertension and other diseases linked to smoking.
“I wanted to do an over-the-top, walk-through exhibit,” he said, citing the role that drugstores have played in keeping America smoking. “I’m not going after individual pharmacies as much as the chains that own them.” . . .
By touring “Your Cancer and Drug Store,” he said, “you are looking at origins of cancer just as much as you would by looking through a microscope.”
I wanted to do an over-the-top, walk-through exhibit. I’m not going after individual pharmacies as much as the chains that own them.Prof. Alan Blum, on his Buffalo, NY, ad exhibit that explores the role that drugstores have played in keeping America smoking.
Your Cancer and Drug Store: One-stop shopping: prescriptions, cigarettes, urgent care and chemo.Alan Blum's mock-drug store: an exhibition on tobacco advertising that opens today in the Buffalo Museum of Science.