http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/category/related.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_19914479?IADID=Search-www.contracostatimes.com-www.contracostatimes.com http://tobacco.org/news/333527.html Spare the air. Spare the human health. Now, spare the pets. You've heard of the no-wood-burning alerts on bad air days this winter to protect people in the Bay Area, but there are others to guard from the smoke as well -- cats, dogs and horses. . . . "I think wood smoke can be a big issue for pets, much like secondhand smoke," said Dr. Suzanne Lee, a veterinarian at the Alamo Animal Hospital. "You've got to assume that smoke affects them, but pets don't complain as much as people do." She estimated that as much as 10 percent of her cat patients have asthma -- a condition aggravated by allergens, dust and smoke. She cautions anyone with asthmatic cats to keep their pets indoors on Spare the Air days, when smoke and other fine particles in the air are predicted to exceed the federal health standard for humans. Spare the Air alerts have been issued on 15 days so far this season in the Bay Area. Lee is not alone in her concern about smoke and pets. The Bay Area's air pollution district and Tony La Russa's Animal Rescue Foundation held a media briefing Tuesday at the ARF shelter in Walnut Creek to talk about smoke effects on pets. ARF diagnoses asthma and respiratory problems in some cats during health checkups before the animals are put up for adoption. Contra Costa Times dcuff@bayareanewsgroup.com ( Denis Cuff Contra Costa Times) Tue, 07 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/feb/03/twitter-resist-cigarettes-alcohol-study?newsfeed=true http://tobacco.org/news/333238.html Tweeting or checking emails may be harder to resist than cigarettes and alcohol, according to researchers who tried to measure how well people could resist their desires. They even claim that while sleep and sex may be stronger urges, people are more likely to give in to longings or cravings to use social and other media. A team headed by Wilhelm Hofmann of Chicago University's Booth Business School say their experiment, using BlackBerrys, to gauge the willpower of 205 people aged between 18 and 85 in and around the German city of Würtzburg is the first to monitor such responses "in the wild" outside a laboratory. The results will soon be published in the journal Psychological Science. . . . "With cigarettes and alcohol there are more costs – long-term as well as monetary – and the opportunity may not always be the right one. So, even though giving in to media desires is certainly less consequential, the frequent use may still 'steal' a lot of people's time.". The Guardian science@guardian.co.uk ( James Meikle) Fri, 03 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9054243/Facebook-and-Twitter-more-addictive-than-tobacco-and-alcohol.html http://tobacco.org/news/333029.html Resisting the urge to check social networking sites for updates is more difficult than turning down a drink, according to a study of people's everyday desires. The survey of 250 people found that sleep and sex were the two things people most longed for during the day, but that the urges to keep on top of social networks and work were the hardest to resist. In contrast alcohol and tobacco prompted much lower levels of desire despite their reputation for being addictive. Researchers from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in America fitted participants with devices which logged nearly 8,000 reports about people's everyday desires. Electronic Telegraph Wed, 01 Feb 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/27/us-glaxosmithkline-idUSTRE80Q0OJ20120127 http://tobacco.org/news/332730.html News Corp executive James Murdoch, under pressure from a phone-hacking scandal at the News of the World tabloid, is to quit the board of drug maker GlaxoSmithKline as he spends more time on his new role in the United States. Murdoch was promoted last March to become News Corp's deputy chief operating officer and head of its international operations, in a move seen at the time as confirming his status as heir apparent to his father Rupert Murdoch's media empire. But his move to the company's headquarters in New York was delayed by the escalation of the scandal at the now-defunct tabloid, which fell within his previous remit as chief executive for Europe and Asia. Reuters Fri, 27 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/a4a417a9eeea4bc48d873dea6ef708f2/NJ--Flight-Pot-Bust/ http://tobacco.org/news/332502.html A man faces drug charges after allegedly smoking pot on a JetBlue flight to Newark, N.J. Airport police say the man claimed he had the marijuana for medicinal purposes. Crew members from Flight 510 from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., say they became suspicious Monday when the man, identified as 43-year-old Adam Blumenkranz of Los Angeles, dropped a clear plastic bag in the cabin. As the plane approached Newark the crew reported the man entered the lavatory. When he emerged, they say there was a strong smell of marijuana. Associated Press Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.theonion.com/articles/supreme-court-overturns-right-v-wrong,27077/ http://tobacco.org/news/332485.html Striking down the judicial precedent that established the legal supremacy of right over wrong more than two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Right v. Wrong. The landmark reversal—a bitterly contested 5-4 decision that has been widely praised by murderers, rapists, bigots, usurers, and pro-wrong advocates nationwide—nullifies all previously lawful forms of right and makes it very difficult for Americans to make ethical decisions or be generally decent human beings without facing criminal charges. "It is the opinion of this court that the Constitution was crafted in such a manner as to uphold and encourage practices that are not right and, ideally, are very wrong," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, which also in­cluded Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts. "Despite the compelling case for goodness, truth, and justice made by our predecessors in the case of Right v. Wrong, we firmly believe that malice, dishonesty, and injustice were the framers' original intent." . . . Justice Stephen Breyer chose to read his dissenting opinion aloud before the court, a rare gesture apparently aimed at expressing the full measure of his disgust with the verdict. "The court needs to overturn this ruling immediately because, simply put, it's the right thing to do," said the associate justice, who, along with his colleagues joining him in the minority, was then arrested by Capitol Police, placed into custody, and is currently awaiting trial. The Onion Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.troutmansanders.com/7th-circuit-ruling-expands-rights-of-whistleblowers-to-sue-their-employers-01-19-2012/ http://tobacco.org/news/332302.html In what has been called a “landmark ruling” in favor of whistleblower rights, the Seventh Circuit in DeGuelle v. Camilli, No. 10-2172 (7th Cir. Dec. 15, 2011), held that a former employee could bring a civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against his former employer and several of its managers arising from his termination in retaliation for reporting a tax fraud scheme to the company and federal law enforcement agencies under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX). . . . The significance of this opinion is that it substantially expands the rights of whistleblowers to sue their employers. It is one of the first decisions to hold that retaliation against an employee who reports potential criminal activity to federal law enforcement agencies is a predicate act under RICO. This means that a company exposes itself to a RICO claim anytime it terminates or in any other way retaliates against a whistleblower. Troutman Sanders LLP Fri, 20 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://action.citizen.org/p/salsa/event/common/public/search.sjs?distributed_event_KEY=650&tag=cuvfecCAI http://tobacco.org/news/332208.html Enter your zip code below & sign up to attend an action near you! . . . Occupy the Courts Portland OR: Rally at Pioneer Square Jan. 20th, 2012 Gather 11;30 am Rally 12 Noon March ... Portland, OR Public Citizen citizensunited@occupyboston.org Wed, 18 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hizzoner_sauce_pan_n9AdFlKbp5yniOhUprFt0L http://tobacco.org/news/331899.html First, Mayor Bloomberg went after smoking in public places. Then trans-fats, salt and sugary drinks. Now Bloomberg -- known for sipping fine wine and downing a cold beer from time to time -- wants to crack down on alcohol sales to curb excessive drinking, according to a provocative planning document obtained by The Post. The city Health Department's far-reaching Partnership for a Healthier New York City initiatives proposes to slash the number of establishments in the city that sell booze. New York Post ccampanile@nypost.com (CARL CAMPANILE) Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085236/NYC-Mayor-close-liquor-stores-nanny-state-attempt-clamp-drinking.html http://tobacco.org/news/331896.html Mayor Michael Bloomberg's warning of last call on drinks was just a test his office said Wednesday, just hours after news of his health-motivated plan broke. In a move to improve public health for New Yorkers a leaked document by Mr Bloomberg's office detailed plans to cut the number of drinking establishments as well as restrict alcohol advertising. Audible worry from both patrons and local business owners throughout the city led Mr Bloomberg's spokesman Stu Loeser to clarify that the plan was not in fact backed by the mayor. The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday Thu, 12 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2085236/NYC-Mayor-close-liquor-stores-nanny-state-attempt-clamp-drinking.html http://tobacco.org/news/331895.html Michael Bloomberg is set to unveil his latest attempt to improve public health - cutting down on New Yorkers' alcohol consumption. The city's mayor is planning to close liquor stores and restrict alcohol advertising, according to a leaked strategy document. Such a move would be the latest salvo in Mr Bloomberg's public health campaign, which has previously seen him take aim at smoking, trans fats and salty food. While he claims his health drive has improved New Yorkers' quality of life, critics deride his approach as a 'nanny state' doctrine which infringes personal liberty. The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday Wed, 11 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/marijuana-users-can-breathe-easier-smoking-joints-didnt-hurt-lung-function-in-20-year-study/2012/01/10/gIQAZ4CjoP_story.html http://tobacco.org/news/331851.html Smoking a joint once a week or a bit more apparently doesn't harm the lungs, suggests a 20-year study that bolsters evidence that marijuana doesn't do the kind of damage tobacco does. The results, from one of the largest and longest studies on the health effects of marijuana, are hazier for heavy users -- those who smoke two or more joints daily for several years. The data suggest that using marijuana that often might cause a decline in lung function, but there weren't enough heavy users among the 5,000 young adults in the study to draw firm conclusions. . . . Overall, about 37 percent reported at least occasional marijuana use, and most users also reported having smoked cigarettes; 17 percent of participants said they'd smoked cigarettes but not marijuana. Those results are similar to national estimates. On average, cigarette users smoked about 9 cigarettes daily, while average marijuana use was only a joint or two a few times a month -- typical for U.S. marijuana users, Kertesz said. The authors calculated the effects of tobacco and marijuana separately, both in people who used only one or the other, and in people who used both. They also considered other factors that could influence lung function, including air pollution in cities studied. The analyses showed pot didn't appear to harm lung function, but cigarettes did. Associated Press Tue, 10 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/09/us-usa-campaign-court-idUSTRE8081I620120109 http://tobacco.org/news/331771.html The Supreme Court rejected on Monday a free-speech challenge to the longtime ban on campaign contributions by foreign citizens who temporarily live and work in the United States. The justices affirmed a ruling by a three-judge federal panel that upheld the ban adopted by Congress to keep foreigners from financially influencing U.S. elections. The court's last federal campaign finance law ruling was in January 2010, when it gave corporations the free-speech right to spend freely to support or oppose candidates. President Barack Obama and fellow Democrats in Congress criticized that ruling while Republicans praised it. The new challenge was brought by two foreign nationals who temporarily live in the United States and want to contribute money to certain political candidates. One wanted to support Obama's 2012 re-election bid. They said in their lawsuit that the law at issue violated constitutional free-speech rights under the First Amendment. . .. In appealing to the Supreme Court, their attorney, Michael Carvin, said the three-judge panel's ruling sets a "dangerous precedent on campaign finance regulation, the First Amendment and the constitutional rights of resident aliens." . . . Solicitor General Donald Verrilli told the Supreme Court that invalidating the ban would allow millions of foreign nationals in the United States to spend unlimited amounts on election advocacy and contribute money directly to candidates, even at the behest of hostile foreign governments. Reuters Mon, 09 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/01/03/montana-supreme-court-defies-citizens-united-decision-upholds-state-ban/?mod=google_news_blog http://tobacco.org/news/331479.html Montana's 1912 Corrupt Practices Act blocks certain political speech by corporations;  plaintiffs in the case sought to have the century-old law declared unconstitutional. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, who represented the state in defending the ban, said the case was the first to examine state laws and elections. Montana has "a compelling interest" to uphold its campaign-finance laws that include both restrictions and disclosure requirements, the court held, according to the Great Falls Tribune. The state Supreme Court overturned a lower state court ruling, saying it couldn't find that current laws unfairly impeded corporate owners from engaging in political activity. The court also said political corporations like American Tradition Partnership, which brought the suit challenging the 1912 law, "act as conduits for anonymous spending by others and represent a threat to the 'political marketplace.'" Corporations can remain politically active by forming voluntary political action committees, which are subject to disclosure requirements, the court said. "With this ruling, the Montana Supreme Court now sets up the first test case for the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit its Citizens United decision, a decision which poses a direct and serious threat to our democracy," John Bonifaz of Free Speech For People, a group that seeks to return corporations to being economic, rather than political, entities, said in a statement. American Tradition Partnership Executive Director Donald Ferguson said in  a statement the Montana Supreme court showed "contempt" for the law of the land and "thumbed its nose at the United States Supreme Court." Wall Street Journal Blogs joe.palazzolo@wsj.com (Sam Favate - Law Blog - WSJ) Tue, 03 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/citizens-united-montana-supreme-court-corporate-spending_n_1182168.html http://tobacco.org/news/331478.html The Montana Supreme Court has put itself on a collision course with the U.S. Supreme Court by upholding a century-old state law that bans corporate spending in state and local political campaigns. The law, which was passed by Montana voters in 1912 to combat Gilded Age corporate control over much of Montana's government, states that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, struck down a similar federal statute, holding that independent electoral spending by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption" that such laws were enacted to combat. . . . To reverse the Montana Supreme Court, however, the justices would have to extract themselves from a quandary of their own making, noted professor Rick Hasen of the University of California-Irvine Law School on his popular Election Law Blog. "If the Court were being honest in Citizens United," Hasen wrote, "it would have said something like: We don't care whether or not independent spending can or cannot corrupt; the First Amendment trumps this risk of corruption." But by "dress[ing] up its value judgment ... as a factual statement," continued Hasen, the U.S. Supreme Court must now explain why the Montana Supreme Court was not correct to consider the factual record when it came to justifying corporate spending limits in campaign finance laws. By a 5-2 vote this past Friday, the Montana Supreme Court declined to recognize the common understanding that Citizens United bars all laws limiting independent electoral spending. Instead, Chief Justice Mike McGrath, writing on behalf of the majority, called on the history surrounding the state law to show that corporate money, even if not directly contributed to a campaign, can give rise to corruption. Huffington Post mike.sacks@huffingtonpost.com (Mike Sacks ) Wed, 04 Jan 2012 05:00:00 GMT