Tobacco Articles: category ets

Robert Moran: Smoking — legal and smoky environments

SalemThink@aol.com (Robert Moran / Thinking about Salem) — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

Nov. 19 is the American Cancer Society's 32nd annual Great American Smokeout. In support, "Thinking about Salem" will address smoking in three columns highlighting significant developments and research findings published from September 2008 through August 2009. Legal environment It was a momentous year. On June 22, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act became law. It gave the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) extensive authorities to regulate tobacco for public health purposes. . . . The industry took a knee to its pocketbook just before Christmas. The Supreme Court ruled smokers could sue manufactures who advertised cigarettes as “light” for fraud. At trial, plaintiffs successfully argued manufactures knew people smoking reduced tar and nicotine cigarettes would alter their smoking habits to extract as much tar and nicotine from “lights” as they got from full-strengths. This ruling bodes badly for tobacco in an ongoing racketeering case. In July, a three-judge panel from the Federal Court of Appeals unanimously upheld a 2006 conviction of tobacco companies for conspiring to suppress evidence smoking is harmful. Along with huge fines ($280 billion), the trial court prohibited advertising any cigarette as “light.” If tobacco appeals its racketeering conviction to the Supreme Court, as the financial press reports it will, court-watchers think it will fare badly.

SGA discusses smoking restrictions

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

On Tuesday, the Student Government Association (SGA) considered a resolution on the policies proposed by Hopkins Kicks Butts that would restrict smoking on campus. The resolution concluded that while the SGA supports efforts to promote the hazards of secondhand smoke, evidence on how these proposals would provide positive health benefits needs to be provided. Part of the Hopkins Kicks Butts (HKB) proposal would implement a campus-wide ban on tobacco products, which would be enforced by peer-policing and a $15 ban per violation. The student organization has also called for smoking to be restricted to 50-foot zones. "The public health objective says that smoking is harmful. What [this group] proposed is not practical," freshman class president Wyatt Larkin said. He suggested that policymakers should determine if smoking is a threat to student health, rather than relying on the claims made by the HKB Web site, which Larkin said, "don't really add up." . . . The SGA concluded the meeting with a motion to table the proposal until next week's meeting, which is scheduled to be in Mason Hall at 7 p.m.

Austria tops teen smokers ranking : Doctor warns of ‘health time bomb’ developments. Fresh call made for prevention campaign.

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

Austria has the highest percentage of 15-year-old smokers, 25 per cent, in Europe, according to a Vienna doctor. Manfred Neuberger, the head of the preventive-medicine division at Vienna Medical University, added the number of Austrian youth who smoked had been steadily increasing since 1997 and that 145,891 Austrians aged 11 to 17 smoked. Noting the average age at which young people began smoking had fallen to 11, he said: "The younger one begins, the worse the consequences will be.” Neuberger claimed the government had been doing too little to get young people not to smoke. "It is easier to buy cigarettes than groceries,” he said, adding the government should use the 60 million Euros in cigarette taxes that young smokers paid annually to pay for a prevention campaign. Neuberger called protection of non-smokers in Austria "a health and political time bomb” and said the country was on the level of the Czech Republic, Slovenia, Hungary, Albania and Serbia in that regard. The doctor cited polls in Styria and Upper Austria that had shown 91 per cent of people who visited nightspots felt harmed by secondary smoke and 60 per cent of them wanted the law on smoking toughened.

Cigarette smoke wafting onto neighbor's patio brings lawsuit

Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

This is the story of two neighbors and a dispute over secondhand smoke in the Sacramento suburb of El Dorado Hills. It seems like a minor story, especially with everything that's wrong in California: . . . In short, the state is a disaster. You'd think with all those problems that a dispute between neighbors over cigarette smoke wouldn't generate much interest but it has garnered more response in the local newspaper than anything the paper has reported in recent memory --and frankly, the Sacramento Bee has been doing a bang-up job uncovering all sorts of graft, waste and corruption in state government. Does this story resonate at the national level? Here's the deal: A California couple has filed a lawsuit seeking relief from their next-door neighbor's second-hand cigarette smoke. Richard and Donna Ganguet were the first to move into a gated community for people age 55 and older. That was 2006. Today, they claim the cigar and cigarette smoke wafts into their yard from the property of neighbor has caused an intolerable situation. . . . The responses --over 600 on the newspaper's website-- are all over the board. . . . I had a problem a few years ago with heavy smoking neighbors. No amount of pleading would get them to take their smoke somewhere other than directly into my windows. I fixed the problem by putting an old piece of fish in a bowl, hooking up a small, quiet fan right behind it, and placing the rig right next to the fence. Worked like a charm - inside two days, the neighbors moved their smoking area away from my side and didn't come back to it. Don't get mad, get even. What do you think? How do you resolve this problem between two neighbors?

WILLIAMS: Ban and advocates need something stronger for support

opinions@purdueexponent.org (Lydia Williams Opinions Editor) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

The question on many minds these days is, what’s up with Purdue’s proposed campus-wide smoking ban? To me, it’s just showing a dog (Purdue and secondhand-smoke opponents) that’s all bark and no bite. . . . Let’s be honest, though: how many of you secondhand-smoke-on-campus complainers actually inhale smoke and not just the scent left behind from a cigarette? Don’t know the difference? Well, smoke is defined as a visually present cloud of gas particles produced from burning something; scent is the residual smell the dissipated smoke leaves behind. Do you know how fast smoke dissipates in the open, outside air? . . . The long and short of it is the University can’t back up the proposed (or current) policy with enforcement, and policy advocates can’t legitimately back up their secondhand smoke claims. Both entities should stop blowing smoke instead of trying to demonize actual smoke-blowing.

Second-hand testimony turned down

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

The state judge in charge of deciding whether South Dakota’s new smoking ban can be referred to a statewide vote ordered Monday that the American Cancer Society can’t call witnesses to testify on the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl agreed with arguments presented on behalf of four businessmen who led the petition drive last spring to put the ban on the November 2010 ballot. The cancer society is attempting to show that the ban passed by the Legislature is necessary for the preservation of public health and therefore can’t be subject to referendum under a provision of the South Dakota Constitution. “It is undisputed that the South Dakota Legislature passed HB 1240 without an emergency clause, and did not declare HB 1240 to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health,” Judge Trandahl said in her order released Monday. The judge plans to hear the cancer society’s arguments on the public-health issue and the petition sponsors’ rebuttals on Nov. 12.

Second-hand smoke testimony banned from fight

digitalmedia@aberdeennews.com (BOB MERCER, American News Correspondent) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

The state judge in charge of deciding whether South Dakota's new smoking ban can be referred to a statewide vote ordered Monday that the American Cancer Society can't call witnesses to testify on the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Circuit Judge Kathleen Trandahl agreed with arguments presented on behalf of four businessmen who led the petition drive last spring to put the ban on the November 2010 ballot. The cancer society is attempting to show that the ban passed by the Legislature is necessary for the preservation of public health and therefore can't be subject to referendum under a provision of the South Dakota Constitution. "It is undisputed that the South Dakota Legislature passed HB 1240 without an emergency clause and did not declare HB 1240 to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health," Judge Trandahl said in her order released Monday. The judge plans to hear the cancer society's arguments on the public-health issue and the petition sponsors' rebuttals on Nov. 12. Her decision on whether the ban can be referred will determine in turn whether a trial should proceed on the validity of hundreds of signatures on the referral petitions. The trial would then start later that same day.

Wynn Resorts accused of not protecting employees: Possible class action over secondhand smoke follows similar case against Harrah's Entertainment

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

A Wynn Las Vegas employee recently sued the resort, claiming it is an unsafe workplace due to secondhand smoke. But some in the gaming industry doubt Las Vegas casinos will go smoke free anytime soon. The federal lawsuit filed Oct. 20 seeks class action status and alleges the casino encouraged patrons to light up and disciplined workers if they complained. The court filing accuses Wynn of breaching its duty to provide a safe workplace for employees and seeks damages of more than $5 million. Wynn dealer Kanie Kastroll has suffered asthma and other health problems while working for Wynn, her lawyers allege. Kastroll retained Chicago-based class action law firm Kamber Edelson for her lawsuit.

State issues warning on secondhand smoke

webmaster@ardmoreite.com — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Based on a major new report issued by the Institute of Medicine that concludes avoiding exposure to tobacco smoke reduces heart attack deaths, the Oklahoma State Department of Health is warning Oklahomans with heart disease or with elevated risk for heart disease to avoid places where smoking is allowed indoors. "The Institute of Medicine points out that even relatively brief exposures to tobacco smoke have adverse effects on the heart and cardiovascular system and that these effects can contribute to heart attacks and deaths," said State Health Commissioner Dr. Terry Cline. "About 700 deaths each year in Oklahoma are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure, and the majority of these deaths are from heart attacks and cardiovascular disease."

Passive smoking

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT

Passive smoking is the inhalation of smoke, called secondhand smoke (SHS) or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), from tobacco products used by others. It occurs when tobacco smoke permeates any environment, causing its inhalation by people within that environment. Scientific evidence shows that exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke causes disease, disability, and death.[1][2][3][4] Passive smoking has played a central role in the debate over the harms and regulation of tobacco products. Since the early 1970s, the tobacco industry has been concerned about passive smoking as a serious threat to its business interests;[5] harm to "innocent bystanders" was perceived as a motivator for stricter regulation of tobacco products. Despite an early awareness of the likely harms of secondhand smoke, the tobacco industry coordinated to engineer a scientific controversy with the aim of forestalling regulation of their products. Currently, the health risks of secondhand smoke are a matter of scientific consensus, and these risks have been one of the major motivations for smoking bans in workplaces and indoor public places, including restaurants, bars and night clubs.

El Dorado Hills couple sues neighbor over cigarette smoke

/personas?plckUserId=@Nyx.Key (Cathy Locke) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 04:00:00 GMT

"In a senior community, you think we'll all be compatible and have the same values," said Richard Ganguet, a retired El Dorado County sheriff's deputy. But three years after settling into their single-family home in El Dorado Hills' Four Seasons development, the Ganguets are suing their next-door neighbor over cigar and cigarette smoke they say wafts into their backyard and house. Because of the smoke, the couple say, they no longer sit on their patio. They also try to sandwich in swims in the side-yard lap pool between their neighbors' smoking sessions. Doug Smith, attorney for the neighboring homeowner, Florence Solone, said the issue is a trivial one that should be resolved by neighbors talking with each other, not with a lawsuit in El Dorado Superior Court. But disputes between neighbors over secondhand smoke are increasingly making their way into courtrooms and city council chambers. With smoking banned in workplaces, restaurants and bars, Californians are less willing to tolerate the smell of smoke in their houses or backyards, said Robin Salsburg, a staff attorney with the Oakland-based Public Health Institute's Public Health Law and Policy program.

Menlo Park council considering beefed up smoking ordinance

jbernstein@dailynewsgroup.com (Jessica Bernstein-Wax Daily News Staff Writer) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

The Menlo Park City Council may consider a new smoking ordinance as soon as January that could ban lighting up in apartment and condominium buildings. At a study session Tuesday night, council members agreed the city's existing 16-year-old ordinance needs updating and should likely include more restrictions on smoking. However, most council members said they aren't yet ready to go as far as Belmont, where a law banning smoking in multilevel residential buildings went into effect at the beginning of this year.

LETTERS: Proposition N: Let business owners decide

Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

While I often find secondhand smoke offensive, it is questionable whether the risks of secondhand smoke have been well-documented. When the "greatest generation" grew up, many adults smoked . . . But it should be the business owner's decision -- not the government's. That's free enterprise.

Let's clear the air about the medical effects of secondhand smoke. In 2006, the U.S. surgeon general reported that a safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke does not exist and that secondhand smoke causes premature death and disease in exposed people. Secondhand smoke contains cancer-causing agents and other toxins, and it causes approximately 50,000 deaths annually in the United States. Smoke-free policies decrease exposure to secondhand smoke, improve the health and productivity of employees and prevent adverse health consequences in business patrons. . . . Missouri received all "Fs" on the American Lung Association's State of Tobacco Control 2008 report card. Some cities in Missouri boldly have enacted smoking bans, and the city of St. Louis appears ready to move forward in conjunction with the county if this proposal passes. While we wait for the Missouri Legislature to step up to the plate, St. Louis County does not need to take a back seat. Despite certain exemptions, the proposal takes a step in the right direction.

SUMMER: Family physicians for Proposition N: | The Platform |

Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

3. The clean indoor air proposal is not perfect, but it is a start. Some health advocates are disappointed that the proposal does not protect all workers. We share their concern. Partial smoking bans can delay passage of comprehensive smoking bans. The tobacco and hospitality industries will work hard to avoid stronger regulation. Nevertheless, family medicine is a practical specialty. A comprehensive ban is not an option this year, but we can start to protect our children and neighbors from tobacco smoke as they dine and work. We can hope that exempted franchises will choose to compete for non-smokers’ business. We can hope that smoke-free nicotine products will make it easier for everyone to stop breathing tobacco smoke. In the meantime, a thousand asthma attacks and dozens of funerals would be a high price to pay to wait another year. Let’s start clearing the air now. . . . The St. Louis Academy of Family Physicians supports the St. Louis County clean indoor air proposal for the following reasons: 1. Fine particles in tobacco smoke hurt smokers and non-smokers alike.

Bars not stubbing out cigarettes: Survey

Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT

The hype surrounding ban on smoking at public places seems to have vanished into thin air. A recent survey shows that the ban has not been effectively implemented since it came into effect in October last year. The nationwide survey conducted by Voluntary Health Association of India (VHAI) with 11 partner organisations found that over 60% of the bars and restaurants flouted anti-smoking rules. At least 211 public places were surveyed of which 127 flouted the law. "Our teams spent close to an hour at these bars and restaurants and measured the air quality using a small device. It highlights the fact that there are places where smoking in closed space is allowed. It is the non-smokers who are at a risk. There is an urgent need to take stringent action against clubs, bars, restaurants etc which flout the law,'' said Bhavna Mukhopadhyay, executive director, VHAI. What's worrisome is the fact that the level of fine particles at these places was 32 times higher than the permissible limit. "