Cities Aim To Ban Smoking

Cigarette smoking cigarettes in public parks could be banned if the Winter Park City Commission gets the right to do so, but that means overturning a Florida law. At its Nov. 28 meeting the Commission passed a resolution asking the state to do just that.

The resolution specifically asked the state to allow cities to regulate discount cigarettes use however they see fit. That could include banning it outright, banning it in certain places, or not regulating it at all, Mayor Ken Bradley said.

Winter Park Health Foundation program director Lisa Portelli said that a change to curb smoking cigarettes would help make the city safer for children.

“Why are we doing this? Kids,” she said. “No amount of secondhand smoke cigarettes has been deemed safe and we need to promote healthier environments.”

Winter Park Chamber of Commerce president Patrick Chapin, who is also a member of the WPHF, said he wished the issue of public smoking cigarettes would command more residents’ attention.

“It’s a little too bad that we have a roomful of people office building, and when we’re talking about something that’s life and death — secondhand smoke cigarettes — no one’s here,” Chapin said. “We’re dealing with something that’s very serious.”

The resolution also sought to promote awareness of the dangers of secondhand smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 56,4000 nonsmoking cigarettes Americans die annually of heart disease and lung cancer caused by secondhand smoke. The resolution urged residents not to smoke cigarettes where children commonly play.

Winter Park wouldn’t be the first to get in on the act if the city succeeds in persuading the state and then passes its own regulations. Local institutions such as Rollins College and the University of Central Florida are already jumping the gun on cheap cigarettes regulation, instituting their own smoking cigarettes bans that will take effect in the fall of 2012.
The city has been pushing for such legislation since Jan. 10, when the Commission first requested the resolution. On Feb. 14 the Commission passed its first resolution calling for the change. Since then Orlando and Orange County have done the same. On Dec. 12, the Maitland City Council will discuss a similar resolution.

Commissioners were all in support of the city having the power to determine its own laws, but some stopped short of endorsing legislation that would restrict online cigarettes use in the city.

“Individual rights I fully support, and I understand that people want to smoke cigarettes and use tobacco in a number of different ways,” Commissioner Steven Leary said. “But I think that individual rights also transfer and that individuals have the right to not have their freedom impinged upon by people smoking cigarettes next to them.

“It’s difficult for me, because I do believe that people have the right to make their own choices, but when it starts impacting others I believe there’s a difference there. When people’s actions impact somebody else I think it supercedes an individual’s right to have a cigarette.”

Mayor Ken Bradley said that the control of tobacco use in the city, when juxtaposed against existing alcohol ordinances, is an interesting issue, but said the city should have that power regardless.

“I think it speaks for us to ask the state to say ‘hey, let us decide,’” Bradley said. “If people want to smoke cigarettes in their parks, that’s their decision. If we decide we don’t want that, let us do that.”

› Read More

Secondhand Smoke Still A Problem In Utah

One in 10 Utahns smoke cigarettes cigarettes but an estimated 17,000 children are exposed to harmful secondhand smoke.

"There is no safe level of secondhand smoke cigarettes exposure," said Dr. Kevin Nelson, a pediatrician at Primary Children's Medical Center.

As a member of child health advocacy boards and a representative of the hospital, Nelson told members of the Legislative Health and Human Services Interim Committee on Wednesday, that research shows preventing exposure to the medically recognized class A carcinogen can prevent child health problems, such as asthma and other respiratory illnesses that can lead to death.

"And children have no choice or voice in this matter," he said.

Between 18 and 26 percent of all smokers in Utah come from low socioeconomic situations and have a generally lower education level, which affects certain neighborhoods throughout the state more than others. And while Primary Children's sees a disproportionate number of Medicaid recipients, many children arrive at the hospital in a fight for air in their lungs, Nelson said.

"When I treat one of these children and sit down with their parents, I have to have faith that a mother or father will quit, even though I know, statistically, that it can take them up to seven times to be successful at it," he said. It's a battle he's willing to continually fight to help any child breathe more freely.

While the state has the Indoor Clean Air Act, which prohibits smoking cigarettes indoors at public places, cities and towns have enacted other regulations to keep parks and other areas safe from secondhand smoke. However, stricter legislation in other states has done more to help children.

Nelson believes that policies to support and reward best practices or good behavior should be in place to help parents and other adults make better choices when it comes to their health. Companies such as R.C. Willey and Intermountain Healthcare have started to charge higher insurance premiums to employees who fail to protect themselves with good health habits.

"It's more than a health issue, it's a cruelty," said Sen. Luz Robles, D-Salt Lake City. She said a child often doesn't have the liberty to walk out of a room where smoking cigarettes is taking place.

While lawmakers addressed the issue of meddling too much in the lives of common citizens, Sen. Allen Christensen, R-North Ogden, said "you can't fix stupid … though we try."

An estimated $660 million is spent in medical costs and lost productivity to treat cigarettes online use in Utah every year. Nelson said that in addition to the financial erosion of society due to the problems smoking cigarettes causes, quality of life suffers, as well as missed opportunities.

"It costs all Utahns," he said. "We're all paying for this."

Lawmakers encouraged Nelson and his colleagues, as well as the general public, to think of ways to better educate the public on the issue. State government has little recourse, but public education efforts have proven effective in the past.

› Read More

Studies Find Second-hand Smoke Risks

As health advocates go before the Augusta Commission today to ask for a tougher smoking cigarettes ordinance, studies are emerging on the potential dangers of secondhand smoke. In two unrelated studies in separate medical journals, researchers found that male mice exposed to secondhand smoke cigarettes had a higher level of mutations in their sperm, while others studying adolescents exposed to secondhand smoke cigarettes found they had a higher level of hearing loss.

In the first study, published Tuesday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Health Canada exposed male mice to passive cigarette smoke. In levels as low as 20 minutes a day for two weeks, they later found more than twice as many mutations in their sperm as unexposed mice and similar to mice exposed to more direct cigarette smoke. The authors note that previous studies found male smokers at high risk for sperm mutations and other reproductive-related problems.

Smoking's impact on fertility is one reason the in vitro fertilization program at Medical College of Georgia Hospital and Clinics tells people to quit first, said Dr. Lawrence C. Layman, the chief of the section of reproductive endocrinology, infertility and genetics in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "We don't do in vitro fertilization on people unless they stop," he said.

In the second study, published in Archives of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery , researchers at NYU School of Medicine, studied 1,533 adolescents, more than half of whom were exposed to secondhand smoke. Those exposed had nearly twice the rate of hearing loss as others and 82 percent were unaware they had any hearing loss.

The authors noted that smoking cigarettes is associated with accelerated hearing loss in adults due to injury to the inner ear and their findings suggest it "may begin at a very early age and may also include those who do not actively smoke cigarettes but who are passively exposed."

More than half of adolescents in the U.S. are exposed to secondhand smoke, similar to the study group, so the finding of hearing loss in that population " has significant implications for public health in the United States," the study concludes.

The hearing loss study was a surprise to Lora Scarlet Hawk, Breathe Easy Coalition Manager for the American Cancer Society, who is helping local groups push for the Augusta ordinance. But advocates already had ample evidence that secondhand smoke cigarettes is dangerous, she said.

"The aspects that we're presenting to the commissioners and we presented to the public is what is already widely known for years, that the Surgeon General has said there is no safe exposure to secondhand smoke," she said.

› Read More

Secondhand Smoke Is First-rate Problem

Secondhand smoke cigarettes can be very dangerous and unpleasant, and people shouldn't be forced to be exposed to it.

A recent poll conducted by Gallup finds that 59 percent of Americans now support a ban on smoking cigarettes in all public places. This is the first time the majority has voted this way since Gallup first posed the question in 2001.

This position is becoming more and more popular in the United States. According to the American Lung Association, 27 states plus the District of Columbia have passed comprehensive smoke-free laws.

Implementing a smoking cigarettes ban in public places will help to keep areas such as public parks clean, reduce litter caused by cigarette butts and help individuals avoid exposure to secondhand smoke.

Secondhand smoke cigarettes is much more dangerous than people might think it is. According to the American Lung Association, it is responsible for an estimated 50,000 deaths each year, mostly resulting from lung cancer and coronary heart disease. The association finds that even short-term exposure can increase the risk of heart attacks.

Secondhand smoke cigarettes is also a serious problem in the workplace. According to the American Lung Association, levels of secondhand smoke cigarettes in restaurants and bars are two to five times higher than in residences with smokers and two to six times higher than in office workplaces. This is a big risk for a worker to have to take, considering that secondhand smoke cigarettes causes approximately 3,400 deaths from lung cancer and 22,700 to 69,600 deaths from heart disease each year, according to the American Lung Association.

Some people have proposed the idea of designated smoking cigarettes areas as a possible solution. This would require public locations to set up shelters that will need to be cleaned on a regular basis. This could potentially mean increased staffing needs in order to clean these new shelters, as well as to enforce this policy. In places like public parks, this could mean increased costs to the American taxpayer. Some smokers may no doubt choose to ignore designated smoking cigarettes areas and smoke cigarettes where they please, which would increase the workload of staff that work in public areas.

Americans really only seem to get behind the idea of designated smoking cigarettes areas when presented with this option versus banning smoking cigarettes altogether or having no restrictions on smoking cigarettes, according to Gallup. Gallup's data from last July indicates that when presented with these options, Americans were more likely to choose setting aside areas for smokers. This data shows that public support for the idea of designated smoking cigarettes areas is there, but only under these conditions.

Florida's enclosed workplaces, including restaurants and public places, are smoke-free because of a state constitutional amendment passed in 2003, according to Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights.

Smoking has a wide range of harmful effects, and has been associated with multiple types of cancers, such as lung, oral and throat cancers. A ban on smoking cigarettes in public areas will decrease the likelihood that people are exposed to secondhand smoke, which has significant harmful effects of its own. It will help keep public places clean and prevent workers from having to choose between being subjected to this smoke cigarettes or having a safe work environment.

Smoking is a personal choice, and people should be allowed to decide on their own if the decision to smoke cigarettes is right for them. We must find a balance, however, between the rights of those that smoke cigarettes and those that choose not to. A ban on smoking cigarettes in all public places a fair method of regulating the use of a product with harmful effects to people exposed to secondhand smoke. To do otherwise infringes upon the rights of nonsmokers. This ban is something other cities and states across the U.S. should consider.

› Read More

Alice Curry Puts Face On Smoke-free Campaign

THE anti-smoking cigarettes campaign in Bartholomew County — and perhaps throughout the state — now has a face.

It is that of a dynamic woman who is most commonly known for her advocacy of other causes in this community — notably the arts and most especially Columbus Indiana Philharmonic.

Over the past three decades, Alice Curry and the philharmonic have been synonymous. As director of the organization for most of that time, she was known as a fierce champion for its mission.

Together with Music Director David Bowden and others, she put the orchestra into a position of nationwide acclaim.

For the past two years she has had to deal with a very personal issue — her mortality. In August 2009 she was diagnosed with Stage 4 lung cancer. In essence, she got a death sentence.

She retired last year as director of the philharmonic — not to acknowledge the disease that had taken over her body, but to move on to other causes. One of the most demanding was supervision of the celebratory events surrounding the opening of The Commons.

At the same time, she became deeply involved with the anti-smoking cigarettes movement, most notably the effort to reduce the incidence of diseases, such as the one which will likely kill her, through legislation that would address the dangers of secondhand smoke.

Earlier this year she testified before a committee of the Indiana Senate on behalf of a measure that would ban smoking cigarettes in public gathering places, including bars and private clubs. The legislation was intended to address the issue of secondhand smoke cigarettes and the role it plays in cancers detected among those who are exposed to it.

Although she did not directly tie her disease to secondhand smoke, she noted that she had never smoked but was throughout her life exposed to others who did. Her physician bluntly observed that “there’s no question secondhand smoke cigarettes very likely played a role in her cancer.”

In addition to her testimony before the Senate panel, Curry has also written Letters to the Editor on the subject and recently participated in a video documentary on the subject in conjunction with the local Tobacco Awareness Action Team.

Unfortunately, those efforts were to little avail in the General Assembly. The legislation was amended to the point that its sponsors were so embarrassed that they withdrew the bill from consideration.

That has not stopped Curry. Nor should it stop elected officials on the local and state level.

Columbus took a major step forward in 2005 by adopting a smoking cigarettes ordinance, but it was only a half-measure. The City Council eventually bowed to complaints from bars and private clubs and exempted them from the coverage.

It was a situation that was repeated earlier this year on the state level.

Indiana will have to wait until next year to again consider the issue, but city officials have an opportunity to finish what they started in 2005 — a comprehensive smoking cigarettes ban with no exemptions.

It will accomplish many things, including saving lives and paying tribute to a brave woman.

› Read More

Smoking Bans And Evidence

ew York City’s ban on smoking cigarettes in parks, beaches, and pedestrian plazas has been in effect for less than a month, and big-government health activists are crowing. This latest “success” comes from a coalition of federally funded anti-smoking cigarettes groups and city officials trying to impose on us their personal preferences. But their justification for the ban is a gross distortion of the science.

The policy’s impetus was a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) program that provides grants to cities to promote smoking cigarettes bans and other policy changes, such as soda taxes, at the local level. While the Obama administration claims to finally recognize the need to limit spending, the CDC is using hundreds of millions of dollars from the stimulus bill and Obamacare as slush funds to promote “evidence-based” approaches to obesity and smoking cigarettes.

But an examination of the smoking cigarettes ban illustrates that the “evidence” justifying these initiatives lacks merit, and that further, in some ways, smoking cigarettes bans cause harm.

There are three purported reasons for the outdoor smoking cigarettes ban: 1) As the number of places one can legally smoke cigarettes is reduced, people will smoke cigarettes less, or quit altogether. 2) A ban will reduce exposure to secondhand smoke, benefiting non-smokers’ quality of life (it smells bad) and health (it kills). 3) Smoking bans reduce litter from cigarette butts. (Yes, Mayor Bloomberg actually said, “This summer, New Yorkers who go to our parks and beaches for some fresh air and fun will be able to breathe even cleaner air and sit on a beach not littered with cigarette butts.”) However, these arguments ignore the ban’s unintended consequences, such as moving smoking cigarettes indoors, exposing others to higher, actually harmful concentrations of smoke.

The smoking cigarettes ban will undoubtedly reduce exposure to outdoor secondhand smoke. But any argument that there is a health risk from transient exposure to outdoor secondhand smoke cigarettes is absurd, and certainly not based in evidence. The city’s press release touting the ban relies on a U.S. Surgeon General statement that there is “no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.” That’s true only in that no study has defined a safe level; it’s not the case that there isn’t one.

Outdoor-smoking cigarettes-ban advocates cite studies that simply aren’t relevant. Reports of disease from long-term indoor exposure to secondhand smoke cigarettes do not imply that short-term outdoor exposure will have the same effects. The city refers to studies that “suggest that sitting three feet away from a smoker outdoors can expose you to the same level of second-hand smoke cigarettes as if you were sitting indoors.” That may be. But why would anyone bothered by smoke cigarettes stay that close to a smoker in the park?

And finally, there are already laws on the books against littering. Why not punish those who litter, rather than those who smoke?

All of this is not to say there aren’t legitimate quality-of-life concerns that could justify the ban. But claiming the mantle of science only works when you’ve got the facts to back it up, explains an expert who supported indoor smoking cigarettes bans. Michael Siegel, a professor of community health sciences at Boston University, accuses officials of “purposely avoiding the critical issue here, which is that secondhand smoke cigarettes in parks is simply not a significant source of secondhand smoke cigarettes exposure.”

But perhaps the most interesting development related to New York City’s outdoor-smoking cigarettes ban is a new Reynolds American ad campaign alerting New Yorkers to an alternative to cheap cigarettes — snus, or smokeless cigarettes — that is not banned in parks . . . at least not yet. The campaign is brilliant because it capitalizes on the ban, encouraging smokers to migrate to a different product when they are in places where they are not allowed to smoke.

Some public-health advocates argue that the snus ads undermine the already questionable quitting effect of the ban. Instead of quitting, New Yorkers might engage in so-called dual-use: using discount cigarettes where it’s still legal to smoke, and meeting their tobacco needs with snus elsewhere.?

There may be some truth to this, but if so, the news isn’t all bad: Snus is non-combustible and far less harmful than cigarettes. But the advocates that push the dual-use theory, like the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, refuse to see it that way. In fact, they helped draft the law that forbids smokeless-tobacco companies to advertise the fact that their products are safer than cigarettes, and that switching — whether permanently, or as a way station to quitting — can save lives.

We need a strong and credible public-health community to face today’s leading health problems, cigarette smoking cigarettes foremost among them. But ironically, activists and government officials are now using the same type of scientific sophistry once employed by the tobacco industry itself. And we know what happened to their credibility.

› Read More

Residents React To Morgantown Indoor Smoking Ban

In a 7-0 vote, Morgantown City Council banned indoor smoking cigarettes in the city on Tuesday night.

One smoker says he enjoys lighting up when he goes out, but for the rest of the smokers, he's not sure how well this ban will go over with them.

"When I go out, I like to smoke, and I notice a lot of people like to smoke cigarettes when they go out, especially at the Sports Page and the Beanery and everything. So, I don't know how that's going to go over because a lot of the kids like to smoke, too. We'll see what happens," says Chris Duke, a smoker.

One the other side of the coin, some non-smokers are pretty happy about the decision.

For one non-smoker, he's happy to be free from secondhand smoke cigarettes when he heads out.

"With the ban on that indoors, it's much easier on the rest of us that don't smoke cigarettes there. We don't have to be exposed to that secondhand smoke, which is proven to be quite dangerous," says Jonathan Miltenberger.

One person we spoke with says that even though he smokes, he doesn't think the ban's a bad idea. In fact, he actually supports the measure.

"Even as a smoker, I don't mind having to step away from non-smokers as a courtesy. It's not a big deal at all," says Sean Kirby.

One smoker adds that not a whole lot will change for him because he's used to not being allowed to smoke cigarettes inside.

"Coming from Baltimore, I'm completely used to having to step outside to have a smoke. It's really no big deal. It could cause problems with pedestrian traffic out front of the bars and everything, too many people standing around near the street. It's really not that big of a deal," adds Kirby.

Some smokers say this ban is enough for them to take their business out of town just to light up.

"I might find some other place to go that you can have a beer and smoke cigarettes a cigarette and get some food," adds Duke.

This ban will go into effect 100 days from it's passage.

› Read More

Ban Smoking From Outdoor Public Places

We, as a state, can do much better in terms of safety in the health area. We could im­prove our standards for a healthy environment by creating a smoke-free envi­ronment for ourselves as well as our children. An ex­ample be­i ng, it’s nearly im­possible to walk Church Stre e t , a popular tourist at­traction and shopping center for residents, with­out encountering the nu­merous dangers of second­hand smoke. We, as a com­munity, need to create a much healthier place for our children to be raised where they can avoid the health risks associated with smoking cigarettes.

Many people argue that their businesses would be hurt because many of the residents and tourists that come to Church Street are people who smoke, but what's more important -- the environment we allow our children to live in being polluted with smoke cigarettes so that businesses can make a higher profit or sacrificing a little for the sake of their health?

The 2008 Vermont Adult Tobacco Survey Report says that since 2000, smoking cigarettes has decreased from 21 percent to 17 percent in 2008. It seems to be continuing to drop over the years as well, so how much of a loss will businesses actually experience considering 83 percent of the population consists of non-smokers? The survey taken in 2008 also concluded that "In 2008, about two-thirds of Vermont adults said they thought breathing smoke cigarettes from other people's cheap cigarettes is very harmful to one's health (64 percent)." The data is irrefutable and draws me to conclude that a change in policy is more than necessary. According to the same source even 49 percent of smokers believe secondhand smoke cigarettes to be very harmful.

Not only does much of the Vermont population choose not to partake in the dangers of smoking cigarettes, even smokers themselves know what risks they're taking by lighting up. If you know what you're doing to your own body, why would you do it to everyone around you?

The detrimental affects of secondhand smoke cigarettes on our health needs to be addressed promptly. It's up to us to create a better future for the next generations and this will set the bar high and make great strides toward a much healthier environment.

The affects of secondhand smoke cigarettes can be immediate and even brief exposure can cause harm to those of us with heart and respiratory diseases. The health risks associated with smoking cigarettes are being made more obvious as more research is conducted proving that cigarettes smoke cigarettes in any way, shape or form is harmful to the body. In an 2006 New York Times article called "A Warning on Hazards of Secondhand Smoke" by John O'Neil, Dr. Carmona, 17th surgeon general of the United States, is quoted by O'Neil as saying, "Dr. Carmona warned that measures like no-smoking cigarettes sections did not provide adequate protection, adding, 'Smoke-free environments are the only approach that protects nonsmokers from the dangers of secondhand smoke.'"

It may be a leap more than just a step in the right direction, but a complete ban of smoking cigarettes in places like Church Street is more than necessary for our health and the health of our children. If we put effort into enforcing such a ban there will be significant changes in the health of Vermonters and it will provide our children with a smoke-free environment so that they can enjoy life without risking long term health affects from constant exposure to secondhand smoke.

› Read More

County Campaigns Against Secondhand Smoke

An estimated 4,000 people each year in California die from secondhand smoke, according to Santa Clara County Department of Public Health officials, who kicked off an ad campaign Tuesday to warn people about the dangers of secondhand smoke.

The campaign was announced at a news conference April 26 with county Supervisor Ken Yeager and Campbell Mayor Jason Baker, who said that as a father of two kids, he is especially concerned about the impact of secondhand smoke.

"Smoking stops being a personal choice when you expose others to secondhand smoke," Baker said.

According to Dr. Marty Fenstersheib, health officer for the county, in California an estimated 3,600 non-smokers who reside with smokers die from heart disease each year, and roughly 400 die from lung cancer.

The campaign is part of a wider two-year county initiative to bring together a coalition of schools, health care facilities and community organizations to prevent young people from smoking cigarettes, help smokers quit and reduce exposure to secondhand smoke.

Funding for the project was provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Santa Clara County was one of only three counties in the state to receive the "Communities Putting Prevention to Work" grant.

The campaign features a TV ad in English, Spanish and Vietnamese that shows how secondhand smoke cigarettes affects young children.

The commercial will air beginning this month through July on the Comcast cable network in Santa Clara County, the Spanish-language broadcast networks Univision and Telemundo, and several Vietnamese outlets. Full-page print ads will be featured in newspapers and outreach materials.

Yeager is part of a 16-member team that leads the county initiative, and he also serves as vice chair of the Board of Supervisors' Health and Hospital Committee.

Last year, Yeager and the board, approved ordinances that set restrictions on smoking cigarettes in workplaces, parks and multi-unit housing in unincorporated areas of the county.

One of the ordinances passed requires retailers that sell cigarettes in unincorporated areas to obtain and maintain an annual permit, limits the number of retail stores near schools, and bans the sale of flavored tobacco products.

Under the ordinance, new retail outlets will be prohibited from selling tobacco if they operate a pharmacy or are located within 1,000 feet of a school or within 500 feet of another tobacco retailer.

Many opponents of the ordinance have said the regulations are punitive and discriminatory toward small businesses.

The board also passed an ordinance that bans smoking cigarettes at the Santa Clara County Fairgrounds, outdoor shopping malls, all county parks, in hotels and motels, at retail stores that exclusively sell tobacco and smoking cigarettes products, and within 30 feet of any outdoor service area, such as a ticket line.

The third ordinance passed bans smoking cigarettes in duplexes, condo and townhouse complexes, and apartment buildings. The ordinance does permit setting up designated smoking cigarettes areas at least 30 feet away from doors and windows.

› Read More