Free classes offered to help people stop smoking

Free classes to help people stop smoking through a 13-week program are being offered in October. The next class begins at noon Thursday in the Kyle Pratt room of Sts. Mary & Elizabeth Hospital, 1850 Bluegrass Ave., according to a city news release. The classes will use the Cooper/Clayton method, with includes weekly support group meetings for 13 weeks, combined with the use of nicotine replacement products such as gum and patches.

 The class participants will get free weekly supplies of nicotine replacement products, and also free educational materials, according to the city news release. Two more classes begin Oct. 8 — at 5 p.m. at the Bates Community Development Cooperation, 1228 S. Jackson St., and at 7 p.m. at the Rowan Place Apartments, 2132 Rowan St., the news release said. The classes are sponsored by the Louisville Metro Department of Public Health and Wellness, the Kentucky Cancer Program and other groups, the news release said.

Smoking in films — especially kids movies — on the rise

The incidence of onscreen smoking in movies increased from 2010 to 2011, ending what had been a five-year decline, according to a new study published Thursday by researchers from the University of California, San Francisco's Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. Many of the movies with significant amounts of smoking were youth-rated films, such as the animated film “Rango” (PG) and “X-Men: First Class” (PG-13). The study also found that film companies that have publicly declared their intentions to restrict smoking in youth-rated films were among the worst offenders.

According to the U.S. Surgeon General, depictions of smoking in movies increases the likelihood that children watching those movies will take up the addictive habit themselves. “The reversal in the previous multiyear downward trend in onscreen tobacco use that occurred from 2005 to 2010 means that movies in 2011 contributed more to promoting youth smoking than in previous years and that the motion picture industry is no longer progressing toward the goal of reducing onscreen depictions of tobacco use,” conclude the authors of the new study. Study’s details For the study, trained monitors counted all incidents of tobacco use (or implied tobacco use, such as a lit cigarette) in 134 of the top-grossing films of 2011.

To be included, the films had to gross enough at the box office to be ranked as a top-10 film for at least a week. The monitors found that the total number of tobacco incidents in the top-grossing 2011 films totaled 1,881, up 62 from a similar counting done in 2010, despite there being five fewer films in the 2011 sample. Overall, the incidents-per-film increased an average of 7 percent, from 13.1 to 14.0. The incidents rose an average of 7 percent among R-rated films (from 26.0 to 27.8), 9 percent among PG-13-rated films (from 10.7 to 11.6), and a whopping 311 percent among G- and PG-rated films (from 0.8 to 3.2).

 Interestingly, the study found that increases in onscreen smoking were more likely in films made by companies with publicly announced policies aimed at discouraging (but not eliminating) smoking in their movies (Comcast, Disney and Time Warner) than in those without such policies (Viacom, Sony and News Corp). “Companies with policies on average had 7.6 more tobacco incidents per youth-rated movie in 2011 than in 2010, to average 8.5 incidents per movie in 2011, while companies without policies had 1.3 fewer incidents, to average 11.9 incidents per movie in 2011,” the study’s authors report.

 And, yes, some of the movies that showed the most tobacco incidents were set in time periods when smoking was ubiquitous (such as “The Help” and “Midnight in Paris”), but others were not (“Green Hornet” and “The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn-Part I”). The study doesn’t make clear, however, how many of the 2011 movies were period films compared to those in the 2010 sample — a factor that could explain the results. Also, I’m wondering how many of the incidents of tobacco use were done by the films’ villains, and, if so, whether that kind of depiction has a different impact on children than smoking done by the films’ protagonists.

Strengthened anti-smoking bylaw passes hurdle

Lighting up near recreation areas and doors to city-owned buildings could soon warrant a fine. The city’s community services committee will recommend Oct. 9 that council pass a bylaw prohibiting smoking within 9 metres (30 feet) of places like playgrounds and building entrances. The recommendation comes after people showed overwhelming support Monday for a much more stringent proposal that would have banned smoking in parks all together.

Five people spoke in favour of the ban and several others submitted letters of support in advance. Some said protecting kids should be one of the main reasons for taking the route. “We’re fortunate as Canadians to be able to choose to do many things, one of those is to smoke or not to smoke,” Kimberly Cairns, a city resident, told the committee.

Children are exposed to smoke in parks “so, in essence, they are being forced to smoke,” she said. Only two people opposed to stricter rules took the floor. Anything that goes further than the Smoke-Free Ontario Act is akin to the “persecution of those addicted to tobacco,” city resident Michael Lewis. City officials have been mulling a new smoking rules since the Middlesex-London Health Unit suggested it in February. Administrators researched the idea and presented councillors with a variety of options in August.

They included posting signs suggesting people refrain from smoking in parks to creating designated smoking areas. An all-out ban was the most stringent suggestion. The option chosen at Monday’s committee meeting strikes the right balance, some councillors said. “We’ll send a message that we want a healthier community, but, again, it won’t push people away from certain activities,” said Coun. Bill Armstrong.

Lawrence follows Indy's lead and goes smoke-free, including bars

Patrons lit up at Lawrence bars last night for the last time. The town's nonsmoking ordinance goes into effect Monday, prohibiting smoking in bars, hotel rooms, family-owned and -operated businesses, rooms in nursing homes and long-term care facilities, company-owned vehicles and bowling alleys. Private clubs are still exempt. Lawrence joins Indianapolis, which passed a similar ordinance in June. But Mayor Dean Jessup said he already has started to see businesses adapt to the ban, with positive results.

"In every instance so far, everyone I've talked to, their business has increased," Jessup said. "So I'm very happy with that. I believe it's going to make us a healthier city." The Lawrence Council approved the ban in July in a 5-3 vote, after it had been tabled a month earlier. Smoke Free Indy, an organization that supports the ban, is holding a Happy Hour event from 6-8 p.m. today at Lord Ashley's Pub in Lawrence to mark the ordinance.

"This is an important step in protecting the health of workers and consumers," Lindsay Grace, chairwoman of Smoke Free Indy, said in a news release. "Eliminating secondhand smoke is one of the most important things we can do to reduce risk factors for countless health threats. More than 70 percent of voters in Marion County, including Lawrence, recognize that fact and favor smoke-free laws that include bars and restaurants." Earlier this year, Lawrence City Councilman David Parnell said he would introduce the smoking ordinance, as soon as he found out that Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard had signed the bill in Indianapolis.

The City-County Council voted 20-9 in April in favor of a ban, which went into effect June 1. Last month, Beech Grove's City Council rejected an ordinance that would have banned smoking at bars,after four bar owners in the Southside community told the council that the ban would hurt their business. A statewide law already bans smoking in most other types of businesses.

Commission OKs proposal limiting smoking in Kingman parks

A proposal aimed at discouraging smoking in parks in Kingman has cleared a key hurdle. The Kingman Daily Miner reported that the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission voted 6-1 to send the proposal to the City Council. The proposal would designate certain areas of parks as non-smoking and provide containers for smokers to get rid of their butts.

 The commission narrowly defeated a proposal that would have recommended a complete ban on smoking in parks. Members of youth anti-smoking group asked the City Council to ban smoking completely in all city parks. The city council considered it but decided against a ban, then instead asked the city’s Parks and Recreation Department to look into a pilot program that encouraged smoke-free areas and allowed places for smokers to dispose of their butts.

Proposed smoking ban for bars delayed in Mobile

The best and cheap cigarettes here, online and tax free.

Bar patrons can still light up when they order a drink at local watering holes -- at least for now. A proposed amendment to the city's new smoking ordinance that would abolish smoking in bars won't be discussed by the City Council for another week.

Council President Reggie Copeland put the proposed amendment on the budget today but taking up the matter would have required unanimous consent by the council. At least one member wouldn't agree so the item will be moved to next week. He said he wants to level the playing field and make it fair for all business owners.

If smoking is allowed in bars and not restaurants, as it stands now, restaurant owners fear they will lose customers to the bars, where people can buy a drink and still have a meal. The new proposal would ban lighting up in all bars and the outdoor seating sections of restaurants but allow smoking on most downtown sidewalks. Here’s what else the proposal would change, if passed:

1. Ban smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants after 8 p.m.
2. Change how far smokers must be from a non-smoking establishment from14 to 20 feet. A new non-smoking ordinance that allows smoking in bars and on outdoor restaurant patios after 8 p.m. is set to take effect in Mobile on Oct. 1. Copeland's proposed amendment would allow smoking in private clubs.

Orange County could expand smoking ban

Orange County wants to stop smokers from lighting up in public. Thursday night, the Orange County Board of Health will discuss a new rule that could expand on the ban that now covers restaurants and bars. Orange County's ban is similar to the one that took effect in Durham in August. "This will be a way to protect people from second-hand smoke," said Pamela Diggs, health promotion coordinator with Orange County Department of Health.

"We know second-hand smoke and tobacco use are the leading preventable cause of death." The ban would cover places like bus stops, sidewalks, parks and recreational facilities. Diggs is also hoping it will get smokers to quit. We got mixed reaction to the ban from people along Chapel Hill's Franklin Street. "It'd support it," said Matt Hayes.

"I think it's an unhealthy habit and I don't understand why people smoke." "When you're walking down the street I think you should be able to smoke a cigarette," said Dan Eubanks. Mike Donovin is a smoker, but would still support the ban. "It's not a good habit to begin with and you've got to respect the people around you," said Donovin.