High time to enforce smoking bylaw

Last time I heard, we lived in a democracy, where majority rules. Smokers are a really bad minority. They not only harm themselves, but others with their second-hand smoke. Mayor Peter Fassbender says they would be in the middle of the street if the City adopted the Township’s rules. How about the alley? Smokers are ignoring the rules anyway.

Less than a half block away from City Hall, a store owner smokes in his doorway every day. On the main drag, several people smoke on a sort of bench a foot away from a health studio. You can not go into McBurney Lane because of the clouds of second-hand smoke. The Human Rights Commission has ruled against smokers in a condominium.

Why can’t we have the same protection going for a walk in our City? Enforce the rules. Hire more people. The message will get out with $100 tickets. One of the most sickening sight is someone at the Langley Memorial Hospital, standing in a gown with an IV hooked up, and smoking. If money is a problem, take a cut in pay. Council members seem to ignore the wishes of the taxpayers anyway, so why do we need them full-time?

Cigarette tax increase

In these pages Sunday, prospective voters were treated to a good published debate on the merits and demerits of the proposed state tax increase of 73 cents per pack of cigarettes that will appear on the Nov. 6 ballot as Proposition B. Writing against the tax was Ron Leone, the executive director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association. Leone's constituents are the largest retail sellers of tobacco products and enjoy a tax advantage over competitors in neighboring states.

Missouri's 17-cent tax is the lowest in the nation, a fact Leone cites as an economic driver for the entire state. He says if the tax is increased, the state's middle class will foot most of the $67 million hit in state and local revenue. He objects to the use of a targeted tax on tobacco to fund unrelated programs such as health care and education and doubts as much money as promised will go to education, calling state use of earmarked funds a "shell game."

Leone agrees education and health care deserve adequate funding and says his group would support a reasonable tobacco tax increase, but "Prop B's outrageous and unfair 760 percent tax increase is simply too big and too dangerous." The case for a "yes" vote is made by Michael Cooperstock, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Missouri. He concentrates on the health benefits of tobacco prevention and says the increase in the nation's lowest cigarette tax will "deter about 40,000 of today's Missouri children from becoming addicted smokers."

Cooperstock does a compelling job of citing the danger of tobacco use. Without doubt, we would be healthier and live longer on average if we were smoke-free. In Missouri, he says, smoking "causes" about 1,800 low-birth-rate and premature babies per year. The Institute of Medicine estimates "the total lifetime medical and societal economic cost for 450 preterm infants in Missouri is more than $100 million each year." He argues a "yes" vote is "a vote for the health and well-being of our children and our grandchildren, and it will improve education and lower health insurance costs for all."

Which of these arguments is most persuasive? Start with a given. Smoking is unhealthy and leads to a lot of public and private health care expense. For our own good and the welfare of the nation, it would be better if people did not smoke or chew tobacco. But it would be better if we didn't bad-mouth our neighbors or run red lights or eat so much fatty food. In an attempt to change bad habits, what is the role of government? The libertarian in me favors Leone's argument against discriminatory taxing of a product like tobacco to arguably improve education or health.

On this basis, there is no end to the improvement we could bring in these important areas if we simply levy a high enough cigarette tax. And what to make of the argument that higher taxes will dissuade people from smoking? Is it the role of government to meddle in people's habits this way? If it is in the public interest to stop smoking, the straightforward method is government prohibition, an excessively intrusive role most people would oppose and one that would bring negative side effects such as black-market crime. Many people want to smoke and drink whiskey and use narcotic drugs.

What is the proper role of government in trying to force changes in these personal habits? So-called "sin" taxes primarily become ordinary government revenue-raising tactics, not vehicles earmarked for doing public good. Government policy generally evolves into levying the highest taxes possible without unduly interfering with individual prerogative. We have found this balance most successfully with alcoholic beverages. We have not found it at all with narcotic drugs, remaining bogged down in the impropriety and ineffectiveness of prohibition. We are seeking the balancing point with tobacco. So, Leone is right.

The way to properly fund education and health care is with general public revenues. Since we are in the habit of taxing tobacco products to produce part of that revenue stream, the tax should be reasonable. But Cooperstock also is accurate. A higher cigarette tax will deter some prospective first-time users. Even if imposing a high tax is a blunt and arguably inappropriate use of government power and will never solve the tobacco use problem, it will have a certain salutary effect. Though it fails to give a clear answer, this nuanced analysis strikes me as the proper approach to the questions posed in Proposition B: Should we increase the tax on cigarettes?

If so, how much? The weakest part of Leone's argument is his contention that his convenience store group would be happy to see a reasonable increase in the tax. Of course, they prefer no increase at all, and one can understand why. As a means of raising general revenue, taxing targeted products is a hallowed practice. When such taxes are earmarked for certain uses, the equation gets flaky, as with the myth that lottery revenues automatically produce increases in education funding. But proponents of targeted taxes always find benefit in arguing a quid pro quo. Voters seldom get fervent in behalf of higher taxes for general revenue.

Prop B pushers have carefully chosen 73 cents per pack as their coveted increase, the largest amount they think they can pass and an amount leaving Missouri in the middle of the pack, so to speak, compared with other states. Smokers are a minority these days. If they had good sense, they would quit or never start, but who are we in the nonsmoking majority to punish them by raising their tax, and is it proper to use the power of government to aim exclusively at those among us engaging in this legal practice?

I don't like the very idea of the Prop B tax, but when distilled to a question of raising general revenue, it can be warranted. On the basis of the argument used in its support, the lonely, self-serving opposition put forth by Ron Leone and his convenience store tobacco merchants is correct. But the state can use the revenue, the nation's lowest tax can afford an increase and, appropriately levied or not, a higher tax is bound to have a deterrent effect on smoking. I will continue this argument with myself as the day of reckoning nears. For what it's worth, when I decide I'll let you know.

Outdoor smoking ban would go too far

marlboroman.blog.com - marlboro cigarettes: Gold, Silver, Red in packs and cartons for cheap price and wordlwide shipping.

Let's stipulate a few things about cigarette smoking right off the bat. It's a filthy habit and a health hazard. But it's also a legal vice, and while that be unsettling to those who would prefer to end all smoking, it's a fact that has to be acknowledged. The consideration of an outdoor smoking ban by Boulder's City Council is an unacceptable attempt to circumvent personal liberty.

 The council will meet Wednesday with representatives of downtown businesses to discuss an outdoor smoking ban that would apply to four blocks of the Pearl Street Mall, along with the County Courthouse lawn. A downtown business association has conducted a survey of business owners and employees in the downtown area on the issue, and the results favor a smoking ban, according to a story in the Daily Camera. Councilmember Tim Plass is quoted in the story as saying: "I think smoking on the mall doesn't fit with our image."

 Others complain about cigarette butts littering the area and secondhand smoke. First, if there is a problem with cigarette butts being discarded on the mall, authorities ought to enforce anti-littering laws. As for secondhand smoke, if there are situations where people are concentrated and still, such as an outdoor dining area, we could see how one person's cigarette smoke would infringe on non-smokers sitting nearby. In that case, a smoking ban would be appropriate. However, the Boulder ban would prohibit even walking the mall with a lit cigarette.

That goes too far. While there is evidence that outdoor secondhand smoke can be harmful, it is dependent on proximity, length of exposure and whether people are moving. A Boston University professor of public health argues persuasively that the scientific evidence isn't there to support the assertion that even a stray whiff of smoke is a health threat. Michael Siegel says that in making that claim, anti-smoking forces undercut their credibility. And he is a firm proponent of indoor bans.

 To be clear, anti-smoking advocates have fought and won important public health battles against smoking and have significantly reduced the incidence of smoking in the population. More than two decades ago, cigarette smoking was banned on airplanes, and rightly so. In 2006, Colorado enacted an indoor smoking ban, barring smoking in almost all restaurants and bars. It was a good move. The forces that have pushed back against this dangerous habit are to be commended. But we all must recognize there is a point at which an individual's desire to engage in a legal activity must be respected even if it is unhealthy, unfashionable and distasteful.

Closter moves forward on proposed smoking ban in public parks

The Mayor and Council have introduced a proposal to ban smoking in public parks. The proposed new regulation was voted on at Monday night’s meeting, and a public hearing and final vote will be held on the no smoking law at next month’s meeting. Two residents spoke out against the law, asserting that it limits their freedom. But Mayor Sophie Heymann said she expects the council will adopt the ordinance.

 Councilman Arthur Dolson, who brought the idea to the council’s attention and is a representative of the Board of Health, suffers from emphysema that he believes he caught from second-hand smoke. “There is no known cure,” he said. If adopted, the no-smoking rule would be added to the section of an existing code that deals with other prohibited activities, such as the consumption of alcohol at parks, said Dolson.

 “Of course we don’t want people blowing smoke on the people next to them,” he said. “We also want them to be a good example for the children. “We’re protecting the public and the environment,” said Dolson. Signs informing residents of the law would be posted on fences around playgrounds and ball fields, he said. The borough has already been offered free signs by state foundations that support such an initiative, he added. The law is not a new initiative, said Dolson, adding that nearly 100 communities in New Jersey have similar laws. It is unclear as of yet how violators of the law in Closter would be punished. But many towns with similar ordinances impose fines.

County smoking ban could affect CPAC

A proposed outdoor smoking ban on Pima County property would mean that an evening out at the Community Performance and Art Center would have to be smokeless. But officials there don’t think it would keep many people away. The county is considering a smoking ban on most outdoor county properties that would end designated smoking areas around entrances and the unofficial smoking spots in breezeways and parking lots. It would not ban smoking in county parks or on hiking trails. CPAC board president Nancy Karsh said that with the facility located on a 17-acre campus, nobody will be ducking out for a quick smoke at intermission.

An outdoor smoking ban, Karsh said, “is going to be a problem. Essentially it’s going to mean no smoking that evening.” CPAC Executive Director Chris Ashcraft said “my first inkling is I’m not too sure that this would affect us. People really love this place and I feel the regulars will come.” Karsh could not estimate the number of smokers among the regular attendees, but said that based on the statewide indoor smoking ban in bars and restaurants, she doubts that CPAC will lose many patrons.

The no-smoking proposal was made by county Human Resources Director Allyn Bulzomi, who said the goal is “to create a healthy environment for our employees and public when on county property.” Bulzomi is gathering feedback from county departments and plans to get the proposal on the Board of Supervisors agenda by mid-November. If the board adopts the proposal, it could go into effect Jan. 1. About one-third of 5,300 county employees are smokers and 100 of those are enrolled in a stop-smoking program.

A memo that County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry sent to the County Supervisors said “the new policy would ban all tobacco use on all County property, including exterior spaces, and would apply to all employees, visitors and others on County property.” The policy would apply to all county vehicles and to construction workers on county projects and vendors visiting county buildings. “At this time the proposal does not specifically address county parks,” Bulzomi said.

The no-smoking proposal would not affect agencies that lease land from the county, such as the Country Fair White Elephant thrift store, and if the proposed policy does wind up covering parks, it would not affect Sahuarita Park, which is leased by Sahuarita Unified School District. The no-smoking policy was recommended by the county’s Health Insurance Benefit and Wellness Advisory Committee to continue the county effort to educate employees on wellness.

“Based on the premium discounts, which can total $40 per month, there has been a significant shift by employees toward health and wellness activities with 100 employees enrolled in QuitPower for tobacco cessation; 3,200 employees receiving personal feedback on health and safety issues as a result of taking their health assessments; numerous employees seeking preventative exams and health screenings; and over 2,000 employees submitting exercise tracking logs,” Huckelberry said in the memo. The county’s efforts already have reduced health care claims significantly, Bulzomi said. While no exact savings figure was available, he said the ratio of claims to premiums has dropped by 15 to 20 percent, though an increase in premiums caused part of that change.

More telling, he said the 3,200 or so county employees with Health Savings Accounts have saved $8 million over the past several years by consuming less in health care services. In order to keep such savings from flowing to health insurers, the county plans may soon insure itself, which also would save money that otherwise would go into corporate profits. In October, the county will seek bids for one or more health plan administrators who would handle claims under the self-insurance program, Bulzomi said. It is possible the county may randomly test non-smokers who are receiving premium discounts to see if they are complying because Maricopa County and other employers have discovered an unusual level of respiratory-related illness among people claiming to be non-smokers, Bulzomi said.

Poor smokers in NY spend quarter of income on cigarettes

Poor smokers in New York State spend about a quarter of their entire income on cigarettes, nearly twice as much as the national average for low-income smokers, according to a new study. The study, conducted by the non-profit research group RTI on behalf of the state's health department, found there was no statistically significant decline in the prevalence of smoking among poorer New Yorkers between 2003 and 2010, even as the habit declined by about 20 percent among all income groups.

"Although high cigarette taxes are an effective method for reducing cigarette smoking, they can impose a significant financial burden on low-income smokers," Matthew Farrelly and his co-authors wrote in the conclusion of their paper, which was published this month in Plos One, an online, peer-reviewed journal. Using data from the state health department's New York Adult Tobacco Survey, researchers calculated that smokers in New York earning less than $30,000 a year spent an average of 23.6 percent of their earnings on cigarettes, compared with about 14.2 percent nationally.

The state's wealthier smokers - those earning over $60,000 - spent an average of 2.2 percent of their income on the habit, about the same as the national figure. New York has the highest state cigarette tax in the nation, at $4.35 a pack, compared with a national average of $1.46. New York City imposes an additional $1.50 tax. The researchers said they did not have enough data to measure whether city residents were shelling out an even larger portion of their earnings on cigarettes. The low-income now spend twice as much of their earnings on cigarettes as they did in 2003, when the state imposed a tax of $1.50 on each pack.

The researchers concluded that to make the cigarette tax less regressive, the state should spend more of the resulting revenue on programs that help low-income smokers quit the habit, although both the researchers and the health department say this would be a challenge. "They can be a hard-to-reach population," Peter Constantakes, a health department spokesman, said in an interview on Wednesday. Raising the cost of cigarettes through taxation is a proven method of encouraging smokers to quit, he said. The state spends about $41 million a year on tobacco control programs - about half of what it spent four years ago.

No U/A certification required for depicting smoking scene in films

Ministry of Information& Broadcasting and Ministry Of Health has decided to drop the clause that necessitated "UA" Certification for the films showing tobacco products as per the amendment to the notification regarding depiction of Smoking Scenes in Films. Films showing use of tobacco products will now not be considered for "UA" certification on this ground alone.

As per the new notification, it is obligatory to display anti-tobacco health spots of minimum 30 seconds at the beginning and middle of the films displaying tobacco products or their use. Also, an audio-visual disclaimer of minimum 20 seconds on the ill-effects of tobacco use shall be displayed at the beginning and middle of the films displaying tobacco products or their use. In addition to the health spots and disclaimers, the films showing use of the tobacco products shall also be required to display an anti-tobacco health warning in the form of a static message during the period of display of the tobacco products or their use in the films. It has been agreed between the two Ministries.

 To serve as a good news Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has agreed to bear all the costs relating to production of such health spots and disclaimers. These health spots and disclaimers prepared by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare will be provided to the Central Board of Film Certification in digital beta format for distribution to the filmmakers at the time of their application for certification.

Tax credited for smoking decline

Recent reports indicate that some legislation tough on tobacco companies is beginning to lead to a decrease in the amount of smokers in both Wisconsin and the United States. A statement yesterday from SmokeFree Wisconsin said since April 1, 2009, when President Barack Obama raised the tax on cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.01, one million adults on Medicaid stopped smoking, which should result in cheaper health care for taxpayers.

This tax increase, along with the statewide public smoking ban from 2010, has made Wisconsin more closely resemble smoke-free state. Rep. Jon Richards, D-Milwaukee, wrote the Smoke-Free Wisconsin Act. This act ensures smoke-free air in restaurants, bars and workplaces throughout Wisconsin. Richards said making cigarettes more expensive is an effective way of reducing smoking, particularly for young people.

“The smoke-free workplace law we passed in 2010 and tobacco prevention efforts are also working to significantly reduce smoking among children and adults across Wisconsin. Yet, smoking still remains the leading cause of preventable death in Wisconsin,” Richards said in an email to The Badger Herald. “Our work is far from done.” Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of SmokeFree Wisconsin, agreed raising taxes on cigarettes has proven to be effective in discouraging young people from smoking.

Busalacchi said she also thinks the tax increase has encouraged people who want to quit smoking to follow through with it. Busalacchi also noted some people have moved to candy cigarettes, which are taxed less. Busalacchi said she thinks all types of cigarettes, tobacco or not, should be taxed equally, including candy cigarettes. She also said better programs should exist in all parts of Wisconsin to help smokers quit.

 “It has been shown in the past that people do quit smoking when the taxes on cigarettes are raised,” Busalacchi said. ”More needs to be done to reduce smoking in our state. Programs should be made available in more places in Wisconsin to help smokers quit smoking.” Director of University Health Services Sarah Van Orman said she is also in favor of the tax increase on cigarettes. She said it has been proven to reduce smoking and decrease the amount of individuals who start smoking. Van Orman said more funding is needed to ensure all individuals have access to programs and counseling to help them quit smoking.

 According to Van Orman, these programs are partially funded through lawsuits against tobacco companies, but some of that funding has been lost. If more people had the resources to quit, then the state would be one step closer to reducing smoking-related diseases, Van Orman said. “Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death in Wisconsin, and one of the reasons health care costs are high,” Van Orman said. “Smoking causes diseases such as cancer and congestive heart failure. Raising the taxes on cigarettes will ultimately decrease the amount of youth smokers, which should lead to a long-term reduction of smoking throughout the nation.”

 Pete Madland, executive director of the Wisconsin Tavern League, said the League opposed the smoking ban during the legislation. He said it has had a negative effect on taverns across the state. Madland said members of the League tell him people spend less time in the bars and instead go to the liquor store, get a six pack of beer and go home. He added there will likely not be an effort to overturn the ban despite it’s detriment to taverns. “Our members are trying to adjust to the law and according to polls, the smoking ban is very popular throughout the state, so I don’t see any politician taking the incentive to try and change it,” Madland said.

Jerry Brown signs bills on cigarette sales and infant health

California will crack down harder on stores that sell cigarettes to minors and hospitals will be required to screen infants for congenital heart disease under new legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown. The governor's office announced the bill signings on Saturday. Brown has been whittling down more than 700 bills that were passed in the final week of the legislative session, which ended after midnight on Sept. 1.

The bill on tobacco sales (AB 1301) requires the state to suspend a store's license for 45 days for three violations within five years. For five violations within five years, the license is permanently revoked. The legislation was authored by Assemblyman Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo). The healthcare legislation (AB 1731) will ensure infants are tested for congenital heart disease before they're discharged from the hospital.

The disease is found in seven to nine of every 1,000 babies, according to the March of Dimes, an advocacy organization that focuses on infant health. The program could cost state healthcare programs between $600,000 and $1.8 million per year to cover the tests.

Council to appoint panel to study smoking issue

Smoking inside or outside restaurants,such as Hooligan’s on the Square, could go by the wayside if the Denton City Council passes a smoking ban ordinance. Smokers may have fewer places to light up in Denton next year, depending on an ad hoc committee’s work over the next few months. The City Council is expected Tuesday to appoint residents to an advisory committee to take up the matter.

The city staff has offered a time frame to develop an ordinance that could be put in front of the council by the end of 2012, according to city spokeswoman Lindsey Baker. The city has heard from many residents since the City Council first discussed the matter in a work session in January. Several residents asked the council last year to pass a smoke-free workplace ordinance for Denton. “We’re still getting e-mails,” Baker said. Public smoking bans aren’t new. California implemented a statewide ban for most public places in the mid-1990s. Most states have passed a statewide ban in recent years. State Rep. Myra Crownover, R-Corinth, introduced legislation for a statewide smoking ban in 2011, but the matter failed.

It was the third time a comprehensive smoking ban had been introduced at the state level. Many believed the legislation had the votes, but a minority in the Texas Senate used a rule to keep the legislation off the floor. Some business owners are concerned that they will lose customers if smoking is banned in their establishments, but others argue — as Crownover has — that waiters, bartenders and other workers are exposed to secondhand smoke, and that costs Texas taxpayers in additional Medicaid expenses.

The Texas Department of State Health Services promotes the adoption of comprehensive smoking bans. More than 30 Texas cities have enacted smoking bans for enclosed workplaces, including bars and restaurants. Many North Texas cities — including Dallas, Flower Mound, Frisco, McKinney, Plano, Richardson, Rowlett and Southlake — have adopted such bans in the last five years. In his personal view, Chuck Fremaux, board chairman of the Denton Chamber of Commerce and a longtime Denton businessman, believes the choice of whether to allow smoking belongs to a business owner, “so if I lose customers, that’s my problem,” Fremaux said. However, he understands why many restaurant owners want the ban.

They can have the smoke-free environment with less risk to the business. After Dallas passed its smoking ban, some customers drove to Addison’s bars and restaurants, Fremaux said, hence the rationale for a statewide ban. “Everyone is on an equal footing, then,” Fremaux said. During its work session in January, the Denton City Council learned that Houston and El Paso had both studied the impact of the smoking bans there and found little evidence it affected sales in bars and restaurants. Dallas’ loss was deemed statistically insignificant.

As a result, the council showed little interest in January in pursuing an economic study of impacts a smoking ban might have on Denton. Instead, the council told the staff they wanted to put together a committee that represented a variety of community interests. The city staff has prepared a proposal that would include a 15-member committee with representatives from the medical and public health community, all three chambers of commerce and residents. But the council could go in a different direction if it preferred, Baker said.
The ad hoc committee is likely to be charged with helping the council define public places and workplaces and recommending any exceptions that might be included in the ordinance. In addition to forming the ad hoc committee, the council will hold public hearings during its regular meeting Tuesday for four zoning changes and one specific-use permit for a home-based hair salon. The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. and will be preceded by a council work session scheduled for 3 p.m.

Warren mayor's no-smoking zone gets tabled by City Council for now

Smoking outside city buildings in Warren has some folks steaming. The Warren City Council voted Tuesday to table a request from Mayor Jim Fouts asking it to pass a measure banning smoking within 100 feet of all city buildings. The issue went before the City Council after Fouts used his executive authority to implement the ban without council approval.

But Judge John Chmurna had the signs removed from the 37th District Court, saying Fouts didn't have the authority to issue the ban without the council voting on it. "At the 37th District Court, we're all about the law, and if there's no law preventing you from doing that, I don't like signs on this building preventing you from doing that," Chmurna said. "Jim Fouts is the mayor of the city of Warren; he's not the ruler of a kingdom."

Fouts said he had a city attorney research the issue and, based on that, said he believes he can issue the ban on his authority alone. "I guess there's no real downside (to making it a law) except I didn't want to be involved with the government red tape, where you have to write up people and impose fines," Fouts said. "I thought we could do it on the basis of common courtesy."

Most council members back stronger smoking rules

Smokers who enjoy lighting up in a bar or private club in Columbus could soon see an end to this act, 24-Hour News 8’s news partner The Republic reports. Most members of the Columbus City Council support a stronger city ordinance which currently follows state law.

 Certain exemptions are provided by state law, including for bars, private clubs, casinos and horse riding facilities. Passage of a local smoking ordinance in 2005 drew heated opposition. The ordinance took effect in 2006 and was similar to the current state law passed in July.

 At a special City Council meeting on Monday, the only turn out was of people who favor a stronger ordinance. Councilman Ryan Brand said the lack of opposition reflects changing attitudes toward smoking. Brand also says this is a sign that the time is right to pass a stricter local smoking ordinance.

St. Charles County Council move could limit smoking ban lawsuit

Legislation will be introduced Monday night to correct inconsistent language in the county ordinance passed last month that put a smoking ban package on the Nov. 6 ballot. Approval of the clean-up measure could remove some legal arguments in a lawsuit filed Thursday seeking to keep the two smoking-related questions off the ballot.

The suit, filed by bowling alley owner Terry Alexander, alleges that the ballot questions in the council-approved ordinance include language clashing with other parts of the ordinance such as new wording that would go into the county charter. For example, the suit points out, the planned charter wording doesn't include a proposed exemption for private clubs in one of the two ballot issues. Such wording could mislead voters, the suit says.

Council Chairwoman Nancy Matheny, R-Weldon Spring, said she expected that the clean-up measure would be passed at the council's Sept. 24 meeting. Matheny said county attorneys had suggested changing the wording before the suit was filed. The clean-up bill, however, doesn't address the suit's separate argument that the council violated a county charter requirement regarding introduction of bills. The charter says bills must be read aloud in their entirety when introduced unless written copies are available to the public through the county registrar's office at least 36 hours before the meeting.

In this instance, the suit notes, the bill wasn't submitted in time but still wasn't read in full. County Counselor Joann Leykam has said previous court cases concluded that such rules don't apply to measures that ultimately are decided in an election. The lawsuit by Alexander, a former county treasurer, was assigned to Circuit Judge Lucy Rauch. Under the council's unusual two-question plan, voters would first decide on a proposal for a countywide ban on smoking in enclosed public places and places of employment.

They then would vote on a separate proposition exempting private clubs and any facility where patrons and employees are over age 21, such as bars and casino gambling floors. The exemption measure also would apply to 20 percent of hotel rooms. The propositions would apply to both unincorporated areas and municipalities, although cities would still be allowed to enact tougher laws of their own.

Stop-Smoking Clinic At Hospital In New Britain

The Hospital for Special Care will offer a smoking cessation program starting Sept. 11. An American Lung Association-trained leader will runs the sessions. Registration is under way, and is open to adults 18 and over.

 "Because most people know that smoking is dangerous, this program will teach adult smokers the skills and techniques they need to focus exclusively on how to quit, and more importantly, to stay quit," said Elyse Carroll, pulmonary rehabilitation coordinator at the hospital.

NYC's new smoking cessation campaign will hit home on Staten Island

A new city Health Department campaign aims to show New Yorkers the devastating side effects of smoking. Dubbed, “Suffering Every Minute,” the initiative includes two new television, Internet and print ads depicting the suffering caused by smoking-related illness. In one ad, a man violently coughs as a symptom of lung cancer. In the other, a woman must be cared for by her young son as she suffers from the late stages of smoking-related cancer.

The ads end with the stark statistics: 285,000 Americans are living with lung cancer caused by smoking, and more than 846,000 are living with cancer caused by smoking. On Staten Island, more than 13 percent of residents smoke, and the borough also has the highest rates of smoking for youth in the city, according to the Staten Island Smoke-Free Partnership.

The Health Department states that smoking continues to be the leading cause of premature preventable deaths in the city. While the smoking rate has significantly declined since 2002, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers still smoke, putting themselves and those they love at risk of disease, disability and death.

Anti-smoking group reaches out to migrants

An Australian anti-smoking lobby group has begun a multicultural outreach program to help migrants kick the habit. Quit Victoria is partnering with the Chinese Cancer Society in an effort to translate resources, train Chinese-speaking educators and provide material for local Chinese newspapers.

Quit Victoria multicultural outreach program manager, Luke Atkin, told Radio Australia's Connect Asia the majority of Asian countries have a higher prevalence of smoking than Australia does. Mr Atkin says there is evidence that when people move to a country of lower smoking prevalence, such as Australia, there is an "increased number of quit attempts."

He says Quit have been working with many countries in the region on smoking legislation, quit help-lines and graphic health warnings. "They don't necessarily have the same level of protections around things like second-hand smoke either so I think the landscape is very different for many people from those countries," Mr Atkin said. Research shows most people have between 13 and 17 quit attempts before they're successful, Mr Atkin added.

ACL may repeat smoking ban

Smokers attending the Austin City Limits music festival may be constrained for the second year in a row because of a burn ban set for all of Travis County. The Travis County Commissioners Court approved a ban on all outdoor burning after moisture readings indicated the soil was drying up. In the wake of the Bastrop County complex fire, which destroyed more than 30,000 acres, the county also issued a burn ban last year that restricted smoking at Zilker Park, where ACL is held.

Travis County fire marshal Hershel Lee said only those who abide by hot work procedures will be allowed to burn anything. He did not comment on whether smoking restrictions will be seen at this year’s ACL festival. Last year, a ban restricted smoking and building fires at ACL, forcing patrons to remove themselves from the grounds before lighting up. “Only those who abide by the hot work procedures of cutting, welding and grinding are the exception,” he said.

 Procedures include making sure that the surrounding 25 feet of workspace is free from vegetation, always having a fire extinguisher handy and making sure a fire watch person is nearby at all times. Biology junior Alex Moore bought tickets for the upcoming festival and said she thinks it is a smart idea to initiate a smoking ban. “Although personally I don’t smoke cigarettes, I completely understand the seriousness of a burn ban and would understand if a smoking ban was implemented,” Moore said. She did, however, have other concerns. “Do you know if the ban includes marijuana? Because if so, I’m going to have to get high beforehand,” Moore said.

Smoking warning during movie will distract: Kabir Bedi

The government has lifted the ban on showing smoking scenes in movies but internationally acclaimed actor Kabir Bedi is not happy and says the rule to show statutory warning during such scenes will be a distraction too. "Disclaimers before and after film apart, mandatory banner warnings during smoking scenes are a violation of creative rights.

Breaks attention," Kabir tweeted. The government had Tuesday informed the Supreme Court that it would shortly permit smoking scenes in films - though with the strict stipulation that one of the actors in the scene warns viewers that "smoking kills", while a static message would be displayed in the course of the scene showing smoking.