What Happens If There Are Smoking Bans In Every State?

It's only taken half a century or so, but the American public has finally realized and come to accept that inhaling additive-laden smoke--first or second-hand (or third-hand, even)--isn't the healthiest thing in the world. So over the past 10 years, 25 states and Washington, D.C. have implemented smoking bans in private sector worksites, restaurants, and bars. If the bans continue at their current rate, that number could balloon to include every state in the union by 2020, according to some simple math (25 states in 10 years equals 50 states in 20 years) from the Center for Disease Control.

Currently, there are only seven states with no smoking restrictions: Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Some of these--like tobacco-loving West Virginia--may never budge on smoking laws, but the tobacco industry should still be shaking in its cowboy boots. That's because, unsurprisingly, bans have a big influence on smoking rates.

In one CDC study, employees who worked in smoke-free workplaces were almost twice as likely to stop smoking as those who worked in places that allowed free-for-all smoking. And in New York City, smoking rates among adults dropped from 21.6% to 19.2% (approximately 140,000 fewer smokers) after the implementation of an all-encompassing smoking ban.

This is all well and good, but 88 million nonsmokers aged 3 and up are still exposed to deadly secondhand smoke each year. Remember:This is with bans in 25 states. Until the CDC figures out how to eliminate rebellious 13 year-olds and stressed-out office workers, people will continue to smoke and die from heart disease and lung cancer. Still, the tobacco industry may want to start thinking more seriously about manufacturing other kinds of cigarettes.

Spartanburg Council Votes In Favor Of Smoking Ban

Spartanburg's smoking ban ordinance passed the first reading during a City Council meeting Monday.
The new proposal could mean that smoking would be banned inside restaurants, and smokers at those establishments must be 15 feet away from entrances and exits before they light up. The proposal also bans smoking at outdoor events like Jazz on the Square.
"I would have no problem with the ordinance if it was rewritten to when an establishment could serve food in an outdoor environment and allow smoking at the same time," said Bradley Carter, a smoker.
During the meeting, those on both sides of the heated debate were asked to take a deep breath before speaking.
"I am just thrilled," said Jan Benajmin, a non-smoker who supports the ban.
Benjamin stood in front of the council and talked about her stepfather, who died from lung cancer. She said she blames second-hand smoke.
"To be able to go into an eating establishment, a restaurant here in Spartanburg, and not have to worry about whether there's going to be a smoker next to you, is a wonderful thing," Benjamin said.
After discussion and debate, council members voted to pass the proposal.
Councilman Robert Reeder, who voted against the proposal, said he doesn't support smoking in restaurants, but believes there should be a designated area for smokers at outdoor events.
"I'm not for smoking, but we're using taxpayers' money for these events," Reeder said. "When we're using taxpayers' money for these events and we stated earlier that there will be a designated area, then we come back and change that, they have the right to participate in smoking."
If the proposal becomes law, businesses like cigar bars would be exempt from the ban.
Council members said the ban will be complaint driven, meaning police will first give business owners a warning, but the next time they would be given a ticket.
Fines would range anywhere from $25 to $100. If a business owner tells a customer to stop smoking and he or she won't, then police would give the customer the fine, not the business owner.
Council members will have their second reading on the ban in two weeks.

Casino smoking regulations / Follow the rules

Folks who think Atlantic City casinos can regulate themselves must be dismayed by word of the sad job they are doing obeying the city's partial smoking ban.
Four years after the city adopted a partial smoking ban in casinos, apparent violations are common. A Press reporter recently documented them at eight of the city's 11 gaming halls. They ranged from patrons openly smoking in "non-smoking" areas to a lack of signs designating smoke-free locations.

For a time, Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino and Trump Taj Mahal Casino Resort drew their non-smoking plan to include such strange contrivances as having gaming tables themselves be non-smoking, while allowing smoking in the seats around them.
At one casino, two slot machines sitting side by side each bear a sign. One prohibits smoking, the other allows it.
At another casino, one side of a craps table is a smoking area, the other side is smoke-free.
And there seems to be almost no effort to enforce the ban, either on the city's part or by the gaming halls themselves.
We've said before that Atlantic City should ban smoking on casino floors. The health danger to employees who have to work in smoke-filled rooms outweighs the concern that non-smoking sections may be bad for business.
But, at the very least, Atlantic City's casinos should be working harder to obey existing smoking regulations, especially now.
New Jersey's answer to the increasing competition our gaming halls face has been an unprecedented level of cooperation between government and the casino industry.
Regulations are being eased. State inspectors are no longer present on every gaming floor and in the counting rooms. The Division of Gaming Enforcement recently adopted an "emergency" rule to allow casinos to do away with pit bosses.
Each such change is accompanied by assurances that the industry will follow all necessary rules and is capable of policing itself.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to cut corners. And the pressure to meet the bottom line can be a powerful incentive for the best-intentioned to look the other way.
Which is why casino operators should be demonstrating their good faith by meticulously following the partial smoking ban, and every other current regulation. The law is the law. If you don't like it, work to change it.
In the meantime, if casinos want a more relaxed regulatory climate, they need to act more responsibly in the existing climate.

Cutting Anti-Smoking Efforts Could Reverse Progress, Experts Say

Indiana's anti-smoking efforts have been touted as some of the most successful in the country, but advocates worry budget cuts could snuff out Hoosier's progress.
A Senate bill threatens to wipe out the Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Program, cut funds to $5 million and give the responsibility to the Indiana State Department of Health, 6News' Stacia Matthews reported.
The news came after lawmakers failed to pass a statewide smoking ban this session.

"I think the chances of Indiana being smoke-free are in danger," said Brandee Bastin with Hancock Regional Hospital. "I think the efforts for a comprehensive program, consumption rates to go down, is all in jeopardy."
Advocates credit the state's tobacco prevention effort for reducing smoking rates among kids in Indiana by 42 percent in the past decade.
Rick Stoddard, whose wife died of lung cancer, told a school group Tuesday the best way to avoid the risks associated with smoking is to never start.
"You can't wait until you get cancer and then go, 'Uh, this is a mistake. I better quit,'" he said. "It was too late."
With the session set to end Friday, advocates are mobilizing opposition to the bill.
"Tobacco-use rates will rise again," said longtime anti-smoking advocate Mickey Maurers. "There is something missing here because we do not need to be the ashtray of the Midwest."
Ohio, Illinois and Michigan all have passed smoking bans.

Smoking bans on campuses get buzz

First, there was the news this month that Bemidji State University had gone tobacco-free.

Soon afterward, a student vote put St. Cloud State University a step away from doing the same.

Then on Sunday, Winona State University showed up in the New York Times on a short list of campuses certified nationally as smoke-free.

Campus-wide smoking bans at Minnesota's colleges are having a moment.

But that moment falls within a years-long movement.

Hundreds of colleges and universities across the country have banned tobacco on campus -- indoors and out.

A national list of such policies notes 17 campuses in Minnesota. The newly converted Bemidji State makes that 18.

Melinda Wittmer, a junior there, helped form that policy after she grew sick of smokers lighting up in the one area they weren't supposed to be -- within 20 feet of building entrances.

So, a dozen days into the ban, how's it working?

She laughed. "We're still in the first stage, and not really enforcing it yet. But I think I've seen a decrease at least in the number of people smoking around the main classroom building."

Winona State, which went smoke-free in 2009, made the news because it was one of just three campuses nationally certified by the health-education organization Bacchus Network. After a yearlong process, it earned a "silver" standing.

Karen Johnson, dean of students, called it "a formal recognition on a national level that we're doing the right things."

The majority of students, faculty and staff at St. Cloud State support banning smoking campus-wide, recent nonbinding votes show. Earlier this month, 63 percent of students who voted supported the proposed policy. Last week, 75 percent of faculty and staff did.

That policy probably would be phased in over a year, a St. Cloud State spokeswoman said, "to give people some time."

Big Tobacco to fight on over plain packaging plan for cigarettes

THE tobacco industry will take its fight over plain packaging to the Federal Court, after a tribunal affirmed the government's right to withhold the secret legal advice authorising the plan.

British American Tobacco has confirmed to The Australian it will appeal against an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling refusing the company access to the Keating-era document on the grounds of legal professional and parliamentary privilege.

Under the plan, unveiled by federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon on Thursday, all cigarette packets will be olive-coloured and emblazoned with confronting images of diseased organs.

The secret advice, prepared by the Attorney-General's Department in 1995, details the government's constitutional powers to implement plain packaging, and canvasses possible legal hurdles such as international trade rules and intellectual property rights.
British American Tobacco Australia and Philip Morris last year requested access to the document using Freedom of Information laws, but were rebuffed by the Department of Health and Ageing. The companies dragged the department to the tribunal in November, but were defeated last week.

BATA spokesman Ian McIntyre said: "Given the government is continuing to try to hide this advice, unfortunately BATA has little choice but to appeal this decision (to the Federal Court)."

Successive governments have kept the document a closely guarded secret, sharing it only with their hand-picked tobacco advisory groups. The only public record of the document is a one-paragraph summary provided by the Howard government to the Senate in 1997.

Arguing their case before the tribunal in November, the tobacco companies claimed the governments had waived their legal professional privilege by sharing the document with advisory groups.

The tribunal disagreed, with senior member Francis O'Loughlin concluding that the advisers "would have been obliged to observe and maintain the confidential nature of the advice".

The tribunal also found the advice was protected by the Parliamentary Privilege Act, since the 1997 summary formed part of "proceedings in parliament".

The Keating government rejected plain packaging in 1995, saying it would require an "unfeasible" buy-up of the tobacco companies' trademarks.

Cigarette packaging study at uni

Researchers based at the University of Bath have found that plain packaging for boxes of cigarettes could help prevent people from starting the habit – but has little impact on those who already smoke.

A team from the UK Centre for Tobacco Studies (UKCTCS), which has a base in Bath, monitored the eye movements of non-smokers, light smokers and daily smokers when they looked at different style packets.

The results showed that non-smokers and light smokers were drawn to health warnings on plain packets, while existing smokers did not notice a difference.

This suggests that if cigarette packets are plain, without branding, then health warnings are more effective for those who are not yet addicted.

Professor Marcus Munafò from UKCTCS, who led the research, said: "In this study we assessed the impact of plain packaging on visual attention towards health warning information and brand information on branded and plain cigarette packs, using eye tracking technology.

"This technology provides a direct measure of eye gaze location and therefore the focus of visual attention. It is plausible that the more someone looks at the health warnings, for example, the more likely those health warnings are going to be read and understood, with a subsequent impact on behaviour."

Many countries have banned tobacco marketing.

The introduction of plain packaging has been proposed, meaning every packet would be the same shape and colour, with all branding removed apart from a standard typeface, colour and size with all relevant legal markings, including health warnings.