Recent surveys, reports and investigations show that Albertans, in the hopes of setting a good example for future generations, are moving towards a more smoke-free way of life. But while smoking rates amongst adults continue to drop, youth smoking rates have remained steady over the past few years. Of the 809 Albertans questioned by Ipsos Reid in an online poll between Dec. 20 to 26, 70% said they’d support a two dollar per pack tax increase on cigarettes, on the condition the proceeds go towards reducing tobacco usage and promoting a healthy lifestyle. Albertans hope that by restricting the ability to obtain cigarettes, it will help to keep youth from picking up the habit.

“We’ve made great improvements in the rates of smoking amongst the general public,” said Les Hagen, executive director of Action on Smoking and Health. “The rates are now less than one in five, but we haven’t had the same progress with young people. In fact, that rate of 14% had more or less stayed the same for the past several years. It’s a huge concern.”

The Canadian Community Health Survey shows 14% of Albertan youth aged 12 to 19 consider themselves to be current smokers, 4% above what Alberta Health Services lists as their youth smoking target for 2010.

In a survey conducted last summer by Campaign for a Smoke-Free Alberta, Premier Alison Redford agreed to help reduce tobacco sales to minors through tougher laws, adding that “Discouraging teens from lighting up is critical to lowering health-care costs and keeping Albertans healthy. A major part of this effort involves making tobacco products harder to obtain and I believe this requires legislation to further restrict vendors’ ability to sell tobacco products to minors.”

The sale of tobacco products is illegal to minors under the age of 18. An investigation of 60 tobacco retailers was conducted across Alberta by ASH — a western Canadian organization dedicated to the prevention and control of tobacco use — and the Canadian Cancer Society, after a Health Canada survey showed Alberta had one of the worst compliance rates amongst tobacco retailers.

The tests were conducted throughout Fort McMurray, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Lethbridge using 16- and 17-year-old volunteers who attempted to purchase cigarettes and were to tell the truth if asked for their real age or to produce photo ID.

“More than 90% of retailers are requesting ID, and that’s a good thing,” said Hagen. “Unfortunately, two-thirds of those retailers will sell to minors, even after the minor presents valid photo identification. To me, that means either the clerk is bad at math or they don’t care. The bottom line here is that the staff are poorly trained.”

Hagen believes the root of the problem stems from a lack of government policy regulating the sale of tobacco products.

“We’re asking the Alberta government to address this problem and what we’re recommending is that they apply the same rules to tobacco sales to minors as they currently do to alcohol sales to minors.”

Implementation of rules similar to that of alcohol sales would require provincial licensing for the sale of tobacco products, clerks to be 18-years-old and have completed mandatory online government training in order to sell tobacco, a request for valid photo ID from anyone appearing under the age of 25 and potential fine and license suspensions of establishments who are caught selling to minors.

Hagen says smoking awareness and prevention amongst teens is crucial as tobacco companies direct much of their advertising towards that vulnerable demographic.

“The vast majority of new smokers are under the age of 18, so if tobacco companies don’t get them before they turn 18, chances are they won’t get them,” said Hagen.

Echoing the sentiments of Hagen and ASH, Randy Sloan, a pharmacist with the Wood Buffalo Primary Care Network says its important to realize the problem with smoking starts at a much younger age than most people realize.

“Most smokers begin smoking when they’re in adolescence,” explained Sloan. “In actual fact, it is a pediatric disease that people carry into adulthood with them. I don’t encounter many smokers that started in their 20s or 30s. Almost everyone started in their teens. By nature, smoking is an adolescent problem. That’s when it starts.”

Sloan has been working with the WBPCN to develop a smoking cessation program to help Fort McMurray residents as they deal with the struggles of quitting.

“We’ll discuss things like how to deal with the triggers. A lot of people have those triggers that prompt the idea in their mind that they want a cigarette. We also talk about withdrawal symptoms and how to manage those to prevent a relapse back into smoking. We talk about the medications that are available to help you quit smoking and really help the patient choose the best option for them. If something needs to be prescribed, we take care of that (during the appointment). Everything happens all in one visit,” said Sloan.

While patients are required to have a local family doctor, they do not need a doctor’s referral to contact Sloan. The program is also free of charge because, Sloan adds, it’s important to make quitting as easy as possible.

“We want to take advantage of that person’s motivation to quit, because motivation can be a flakey thing. It can be there one day and not the next, so if someone comes in for their visit, we want to take advantage and get them as prepared as possible to begin the process of quitting.”

The benefits of quitting are numerous, but as Sloan points out, are not always immediately evident, often getting lost behind the hardships of withdrawal symptoms.

“Generally speaking, the first month would be the time that an individual would be most challenged by symptoms of withdrawal, but everybody’s different. It’s not carved in stone. Some withdrawal symptoms last longer than others, for example, (increased) appetite is one of the ones that lasts longer. That can go for about 10 weeks. Some of the other symptoms are certainly the cravings, the obsession to smoke, and depression or irritability,” he explained.

“(After quitting) energy levels go up, they can breath better, and people can climb a flight of stairs without running out of breath. There are things people will experience, but may not notice, such as their blood pressure going down. You’re reducing the chance of heart attack and strokes and various forms of cancer.”

The laws for hookahs, electronic cigarettes and nicotine candies could all be tightened under proposals being considered by Utah lawmakers. Republican Rep. Paul Ray of Clearfield is also pushing a bill that would increase the current $3 to $5 copay for smokers receiving Medicaid benefits unless they enroll in a smoking cessation program. The proposal would require the federal government’s approval.

Along with Medicaid changes, Ray plans a bill to require nicotine candy be stored in the locked cases used for cigarettes at stores. Another bill would bar minors from cigarettes shop.

Republican Rep. Brad Last of Hurricane is attempting to regulate hookah smoking and electronic cigarettes indoors. A House committee balked Monday at an outright ban, but Last says he plans to amend the bill to address concerns.

Issues discussed at the first Student Government Association meeting of the 2012 spring semester included a bill for smoke free environments at the University of Houston — which was passed by a 16-6 vote, — student government elections, and proposal of a stipend for student teachers. The University bill for smoke-free surroundings on campus has been on the SGAs plate since the fall of 2011. It is not intended to outlaw smoking on campus, but make the environment healthier for non-smoking students.

Initially the smoking ban was not widely accepted by the members of the SGA, primarily because of the way the bill was first proposed, according to communications and political science senior Michael McHugh.

He went on to say that the bill was first designed to ban smoking on campus entirely. Students and faculty would have faced tough consequences for violation of the ban and even visitors found smoking would be escorted off campus.

“I don’t think this (bill) would’ve passed last semester. It’s the first day back, and many members didn’t see any frustration with the bill, which led to a speedy (pass),” McHugh said.

The bill proposes implementing a 25-foot minimum distance from campus buildings for smokers and 35-foot distance for ash receptacles, as opposed to the 15-foot distance already in effect.

According to the text of the bill, implementation also involves no-smoking signs being posted “at appropriate places throughout (campus) buildings,” with each sign displaying the UH Fire Department and UH Dispatch numbers on it.

Enforcement of this policy may be somewhat challenging for students, faculty and campus authorities.

According to the bill, the success of the policy will depend on the thoughtfulness, cooperation and consideration of smokers and non-smokers alike.

Also mentioned at the meeting was the prospect of providing stipends for student teachers at UH.

The bill is a response, in part, to the lack of any compensation and the strict restrictions placed on when and how long the student teachers are allowed to work, according to the bill text. This leaves them with limited means to acquire money for goods and services they may need.

It’s been about eight months now and the Attorney General’s Office continues to investigate businesses who are selling illegal cigarettes that are either imported or counterfeit cigarettes baring popular name brands. For example, those that clearly state “Made in the Philippines, for Domestic Sale Only and Not for Export”. Last April KUAM News found these cheaper cigarettes being sold in stores in Harmon, sparking concerns as to whether taxes were being paid on their sale.

Attorney General Leonardo Rapadas says the investigation is two-fold, explaining, “We’re trying to make sure that if there are cigarettes coming in, that they aren’t counterfeit and some of the main ones we’re looking at aren’t counterfeits they’re just from a different region then the next step is are they paying their taxes. Are they setting the escrow funds necessary? So far, we’ve found that particular companies have been complying.”

The AG’s Office is also working with Guam Customs and Quarantine, who has been on the lookout for businesses bringing in the unregulated smokes and those who are cashing-in on counterfeits.

When it comes to protecting the public’s health from second hand smoke Shawn Pankow doesn’t see there being any ifs, ands, or butts. The Smiths Falls councillor has asked town staff to provide a report on strengthening the town’s no smoking policy to go beyond municipal buildings. Speaking after the committee of the whole meeting Oct. 24, councillor Pankow said he would like to see designated smoking areas established in public parks and recreation areas, while at the same time establishing distance restrictions for smoking from a door or window of any other public area including restaurants and retail stores.

“It’s simply a matter of moving our municipality forward in a very progressive manner,” Pankow said, adding the move could further attract tourists and new residents.

There was a general interest around the council table to do further research into the issue, and Mayor Dennis Staples noted any research would have to include a public meeting to gauge community reaction.

“The public will have great interest in this,” the mayor said.

A Facebook page has been established to receive feedback. It is Smoke Free Smiths Falls.

Councillor Pankow pointed to many municipalities (Edmonton, Alberta, Niagara Falls, Ontario, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario) who have significantly increased the non-smoking policies in their communities to include the recommendations he brought forward this week. Councillor Dawn Quinn supported further investigation, but cautioned her colleagues to balance the needs of all residents.

“Smokers have rights too, so we have to put that into consideration. We have to give them a safe place,” she said.

Wayne Brown, CAO/clerk confirmed the town has received some calls this summer from citizens asking for designated smoking areas in parks. He added that should a required setback from doors and windows be enforced council may also have to look at establishing designated smoking areas in the downtown core to accommodate restaurants. When the Smoke Free Ontario Act was first introduced many restaurants and bars were concerned about the impact that would have on their clients and bottom line. To address this, some restaurants have patios or allow their customers to step outside for a smoke. The recommendation could very well alter their ability to continue doing so.

Something requiring further investigation is the means of enforcing such a bylaw in the community. Councillor Ken Graham supported looking into the by-law amendment, but said any changes will require a graduated enforcement policy and significant education program. He later noted that some of the enforcement cost could be defrayed by peer pressure and citizen enforcement.

Councillor Lorraine Allen felt a strong public education program would do wonders for most members of the smoking public, particularly if safe smoke areas are established.

“I think often the education piece is to make people aware that there’s an alternative,” she said.

Should the town ultimately approve any of the recommendations brought forward this week it would exceed the Smoke Free Ontario Act requirements.

Prior to this act being passed by the province the Health Units asked municipalities to enact their own measures. At that time councillor Graham recalls the town opted to wait for the provincial legislation and follow it so they were in line with other communities their size.

Tired of wading through smoke en route to classes, Boston University student leaders are pushing for a crackdown on smoking outside campus buildings. If student leaders succeed, campus smokers will no longer get to light up anywhere they want, particularly in heavily trafficked areas like the “smokers’ benches” outside the 18-story freshman dorm, Warren Towers. Instead, smokers will be relegated to designated smoking spots.

Student leaders, who began debating the idea last month, hope by the end of the school year to win the administration’s approval for a partial ban on smoking on campus grounds.
Nationally, at least 586 colleges and universities, have banned smoking entirely on their campuses in the past several years, according to the Berkeley, Calif., -based American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Eight Massachusetts schools, a mix of community colleges and four-year schools including the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, are on the foundation’s list as well as the City University of New York, which banned smoking on its 23 campuses in January.
(Click here to see the most recent compilation of colleges that have banned smoking.)

“Personally, I would really like it,” said Pam Rerko, a 21-year-old BU senior from Lakewood, Ohio. “It’s kind of obnoxious that people hang around and smoke right as you’re about to walk into a building.”

But while some students embrace more restrictions, others question whether BU would infringe on students’ rights if it imposed a smoking ban.

Smoking is already banned from public buildings in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, including bars and restaurants, and Boston city law prohibits smoking on patios outside those businesses. But those laws do not cover what smokers can do on sidewalks or elsewhere on campus.

Student body president Howard Male introduced the idea of a smoking ban last month. During a subsequent meeting this month, members of the Student Senate said banning all smoking outside would be too restrictive and hard to enforce. They say they are trying to balance students’ rights to smoke with the rights of others to breathe clean air.

“BU shouldn’t want to ban smoking because they don’t want to act like our parents – telling us what we can and can’t do,” said junior Kimmy Hammett, 20, a Student Senate member from Coatesville, Pa.

Instead, the Student Union hopes to persuade the administration to designate smoking areas on campus that are located away from doors and sidewalks.

Even while students agree that a ban would benefit nonsmokers, many — whether they smoke or not — agree it would impede the rights of those who do choose to smoke.

“I wish that they could ban smoking, because I hate breathing in smoke while walking to class,” said sophomore Annie Frantel, 19, a sophomore from Canandaigua, N.Y. “But then you’re encroaching upon [smokers’] rights.”

Frantel said she did not believe the school could say, “You can’t smoke in the middle of Boston on the sidewalk.”

Several students smoking by Warren Towers scoffed at the proposal, saying passersby who do not like inhaling second-hand smoke can just walk away.

If BU imposes more restrictions, though, one smoker said she would heed the new rules.

“The biggest thing is that there’s no ashtrays anywhere,” said Emily Overholt , 20, a freshman from Paradise Valley, Ariz. “If you put an ashtray somewhere, people will smoke there.”

The unofficial smoking spot at Warren Towers, Overholt added, can be unsightly. She pointed to the ground, littered with cigarette butts.

The next step for the Student Union is to pass a resolution restricting smoking, a symbolic move that could urge administrators into action. The proposal would have to pass through many administrative committees before receiving the BU president’s approval.

Restricting smoking on BU’s Charles River campus, which spans nearly two miles along the river and stretches south into the Fenway-Kenmore area, would affect anyone, not just students, who treks across the campus daily.

The biggest issue will be enforcement. Signs around campus that warn BU students not to smoke in front of buildings — like the much-traversed entrance to Mugar Memorial Library — go largely ignored.

“It’s all about enforcement,” said Kenneth Elmore, Boston University’s dean of students. “How strictly do we want to enforce this? Do we want the police to walk around and start yanking people out?”

A lawsuit that produced a $10.1 billion judgment against cigarette-maker Philip Morris is headed back to Madison County circuit court after the Illinois Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to hear the company’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that revived the litigation. In 2003, then-Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron awarded plaintiffs $10.1 billion in compensatory and punitive damages after a two-month trial of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of Illinois smokers.

Plaintiffs represented by St. Louis attorney Stephen Tillery contended that Philip Morris (now Altria Group Inc.) deceived consumers when it advertised that certain of its cigarettes were “light” and contained “lowered tar and nicotine.” They said the company knew that Marlboro Lights were not safer than nonlight cigarettes and might even be more dangerous to health.
The case appeared dead after the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court judgment in 2005, finding that the company’s use of the terms of “light, low or reduced” to describe cigarettes were specifically authorized by the Federal Trade Commission. But the U.S. Supreme Court, in a December 2008 decision, Altria Group Inc. v. Good, found that the FTC did not authorize use of those terms.
Just days after the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Tillery petitioned to reinstate the case in the circuit court, so that “new facts” established in the Good case could be considered. But Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth dismissed the petition, ruling it had been filed too late. In February, the 5th District Appellate Court reversed Ruth’s finding that the petition was filed too late and sent it back to the circuit court for “further proceedings.”
In a one-sentence ruling, the state Supreme Court declined on Wednesday to hear the company’s appeal of that ruling. Supreme Court spokesman Joe Tybor said Justice Robert R. Thomas did not participate but said he would file a dissent later.
“The Illinois Supreme Court today issued a sound decision in Price v. Philip Morris that we believe charts the way for the circuit court to hear arguments regarding whether these terms were ever authorized by the FTC,” Tillery, of the Korein Tillery law firm, said Wednesday. Tillery said the decision could signal a willingness by the state Supreme Court to reconsider its 2005 decision in light of the Good case.
Altria attorney Murray Garnick said the court’s reversal of the Madison County judgment still stood. He said the court’s decision on Wednesday meant that Ruth would consider the plaintiffs’ petition on its merits, not on the time of its filing.
Either side would be entitled to appeal an unfavorable ruling by the judge and Garnick said he expected the matter would remain in litigation for “quite a number of years.”
The trial of a similar class action on behalf of Missouri smokers got under way in St. Louis last week. It is expected to last until about Thanksgiving.

Sonoma County supervisors unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday that will ban smoking inside apartments and condominiums in the county’s jurisdiction. The ordinance was part of a larger anti-smoking package that seeks to bring the county in line with cities like Sebastopol that have strict smoking prohibitions. A vote on a proposal that would have banned smoking on county property and unenclosed areas such as restaurant and bar patios was delayed until October to give food and beverage businesses more time to brace for the change.

“This is a major step forward in protecting the health of all residents and visitors to Sonoma County,” Mark Netherda, the county interim public health officer, said after the vote.

The ordinance will prohibit smoking in any existing multi-unit residence beginning in 16 months. It will ban smoking in new units, as well as those rented for residential use for the first time, in 8 months.

Second District Supervisor David Rabbitt, while he lauded efforts to prohibit second-hand smoke, raised concerns over the county regulating what residents have a right to do in their own homes.

Rabbitt, an architect, argued that he had yet to see scientific evidence that second-hand smoke could travel from one apartment or condominium unit to another unless there are open windows or outdated, shared ventilation systems.

Howard County, which led the way in prohibiting smoking indoors, plans to extend the ban outdoors to all county parks, a move that would be the first of its kind in the state. “It’s something we’ve been looking at for some time,” County Executive Ken Ulman said in an interview, adding that it’s another goal toward making “Howard County the healthiest county it can be.” Smoking, he said, “is not in keeping with that. It’s a dirty, filthy habit.”

Ulman plans on issuing an executive order that applies to all 57 park properties, but does not include open space and parks owned by the Columbia Association. The ban would take effect Wednesday, when the county executive has scheduled a news conference to announce the restrictions.
“We believe public health is a priority,” said Dr. Peter Beilenson, the county’s health officer. “We used to have designated smoking spaces, but it concentrates the problem. It’s clearly a detriment to people’s health.”

Beilenson said the county has one of the lowest smoking rates in the state, between an estimated 9 percent and 10 percent, according to the most recent national Behavioral Risk Factor Survey. But the health officer said the county had a lower ranking for physical activity, which officials hope to improve.

“The vast majority of Howard County does not smoke,” Beilenson said. “Public property is meant to be enjoyed by the majority.”

Several people interviewed at Centennial Park on Monday said they don’t see many smokers but they supported the ban. “Secondhand smoke has been proven to have negative effects.” said Ray Humphries, a 59-year-old Columbia resident,.

Jamie Kuykendall, 28, from Baltimore County, who also was visiting the park, had mixed feelings on the ban.

“If you’re outside and you want to kill yourself, it’s not a big deal,” Kuykendall said. But, she added, “It will be great for kids not to be exposed to secondhand smoke. I’m sure it will be good for the wildlife.”

Michael J. McFadden, author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” and the director of the Mid-Atlantic region of the Smokers Club and Citizens Freedom Alliance, said Ulman’s regulations go too far.

“There is no health justification for such outdoor bans,” McFadden said in an email. The statement added that “no studies that have ever been done have shown any degree of harm to anyone from the highly diluted occasional scent of someone’s smoke that they might encounter outdoors.”

He continued: “And there is very little ‘annoyance’ justification for such bans since it is almost always a matter of a simple moment or two to move slightly to avoid such smoke as might exist.”

Other states have enacted or are considering measures that eliminate smoking in some outdoor areas, such as some parks and playgrounds, and in sidewalk dining areas. New York City recently imposed one of the most stringent outdoor smoking bans in the country, to include not just parks, but all beaches, boardwalks and other public spaces.

Ulman, who has asthma and admitted to taking a few puffs in his youth, said he wants to protect the rights of nonsmokers who use the park. “You’re really not out in the open,” he said. “It doesn’t mean it’s not being blown into someone’s face.”

The Howard County ban is one of several measures by the Ulman administration to promote healthier lifestyles. Howard has prohibited minors from using tanning beds, becoming one of the most restrictive localities in the nation. County leaders are also providing healthcare to uninsured residents by giving them financial incentives to use urgent care facilities rather than emergency rooms.

In 1993, Howard County was the first to announce a ban on smoking in every public place, excluding bars. It was to have taken effect three years later, but the Maryland General Assembly enacted a statewide ban forbidding smoking in offices, factories, stores and other indoor workplaces in 1995. The law made some exceptions for hotels, restaurants, private clubs and bars.

Howard was among the first counties in the state to extend the smoking ban to inside bars. Baltimore City followed and a statewide prohibition took effect in February 2008. Now, Howard County is extending its ban even further.

While smoking will be banned at county parks in Howard, state parks, such as Patapsco Valley State Park, which straddles Howard and Baltimore counties, only limit smoking indoors, a state Natural Resources spokesman said.

At national parks, smoking is not permitted in historic and visitor center buildings, said Fort McHenry’s Ranger Vincent Vaise. “I don’t know of any parks that completely ban it, but I do know that most nature parks do not allow smoking on the nature trails in the woods,” he said.

Vaise, who is the chief of interpretation at Fort McHenry National Monument, said smoking is not permitted in the shrine area of Fort McHenry — one of Maryland’s best known national parks.

At Centennial Park, people interviewed said they were put off by the litter left by some smokers.

“I think that’s a good decision,” Sean Gronholt, a 25-year-old Columbia resident, said of the ban. “Most smokers throw away their litter, but there is that one in one hundred that don’t. That adds up. Aside from some hurt feelings, I don’t think there will be any real detriment.”

Beilenson said cigarette butts are a “sizable percentage of the stuff picked up in the parks.” He said it can be dangerous to wildlife who eat discarded cigarette butts and it creates additional work for crews who maintain park spaces.

County officials said that people caught smoking in a park would be asked to stop, and, if they refused, asked to leave. They said violators could be assessed civil fines between $500 and $1,000 for refusing to vacate the property.