NEW YORK – Ireland’s implementation of a workplace smoking ban in 2004 appears tied to a decline in maternal smoking rates as well as lower risk for preterm births, study findings hint.

Compared with the year prior to the smoking ban, 12 percent fewer women reported smoking during pregnancy in the year after the ban, Dr. Zubair Kabir, of the Tobacco Free Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, and colleagues report.

Their study, in BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, also revealed “a welcome sign,” Kabir’s team notes. They observed 25 percent lower risk for preterm births in the year after the smoking ban compared with the year prior to the ban.

Kabir and colleagues analyzed records at Coombe Women and Infants University Hospital to assess whether Ireland’s workplace smoking ban altered smoking during pregnancy, a known risk factor for preterm birth and having a low birth weight infant.

Their comparison included 7,593 births in 2003 and 7,648 births in 2005, and allowed for other maternal factors tied to birth risks such as the mother’s age, number of previous births, alcohol intake, blood pressure, and complications during pregnancy.

Overall, babies with the highest birth weights on average were born to former smokers. By contrast, babies with the lowest birth weights had mothers who smoked during pregnancy.

However, in addition to the noted declines in maternal smoking and preterm birth risk, the investigators also identified 43 percent greater risk for low birth weight in the year after the smoking ban compared with the year prior to the ban.

This finding “is intriguing and needs further exploration,” Kabir and colleagues say, particularly in light of evidence that exposures to secondhand smoke during pregnancy may play a role in having babies with low birth weight.

They also call for further exploration of their observed increase in Caesarean delivery rates – from 15.4 in 2003 to 19.5 percent in 2005.

BJOG, An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, December 2009

South Dakota’s smoking ban faces one burning question. Did the notaries who verified the petitions do enough to make them official?

A two-day trial started Thursday in Pierre. The opponents of the ban are only 18 signatures short of getting the issue on the ballot.

Several notaries took the witness stand Thursday and were questioned about how they signed and dated the petitions and if they did it legally.

Linda Wegman was one of the notaries questioned and always thought she had her ‘I’s’ dotted and ‘T’s’ crossed when it came to notarizing documents.

“It’s hard to remember the date so I had my date printed right on it, thought I had all my bases covered,” Wegman said.

Wegman had a customized stamp made to make sure all of her information could be seen clearly. But when she took the witness stand and was questioned about the stamp, she said she never had it registered with the state, and the six petition sheets she stamped were never officially notarized.

“I’ve notarized hundreds and hundreds of documents using that stamp and if anyone wanted to contest it, I guess they [the notarized documents] are all wrong,” Wegman said.

The Secretary of State and the American Cancer Society did contest Wegman’s notarized documents along with several others Thursday. Supporters of the smoking ban are pointing to those miscues as the reason to throw out thousands of signatures.

“The rules are there. Are they tough? That’s not really what we’re here today to argue. The rules are there, the laws are there, the time has past for that,” Darrin Smith with the American Heart Association said.

Notaries were also questioned about only putting the month and year of their expiration date on the petition. The state argues the month, day and year all should have been included.

Opponents say questions about those technicalities are why this issue is in court.

“What’s a complete date, what’s not a complete date? I don’t know. I thought when somebody signed and dated something, 11-09, as far as the year and the month, I thought that was a complete date. But evidently it needs a number too,” smoking ban opponent and Sioux Falls bar owner Don Rose said.

Judge Kathleen Trandahl will hear from more notaries and witnesses Friday. It will ultimately be her decision if the notaries did enough to authenticate the petitions.

By Ben Dunsmoor
© 2009 KELOLAND TV

BANGOR, Maine— Attorneys from around the country descended Wednesday on the federal courthouse in Bangor for a conference on a class-action lawsuit against the makers of light cigarettes.

It is the first multidistrict litigation case ever assigned to U.S. District Court in Bangor.

Multidistrict litigation, or MDL, is the label the federal judiciary gives cases filed against the same party or parties in federal courts around the nation. Once cases have been combined, a three-judge panel assigns them to one federal judge.

At least 20 lawsuits from around the country have been combined in Bangor. The MDL has been assigned to U.S. District Judge John Woodcock, who has not handled one since his appointment to the federal bench in 2003. Moreover, the original Maine case that led to the 20-case MDL is once again in the hands of Woodcock, whom the U.S. Supreme Court reversed last year.

In a 5-4 a split won by the court’s liberals, the justices ruled in December that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote “light” and “low tar” brands. The Altria Group Inc. argued on behalf of its Philip Morris USA subsidiary that the lawsuits are barred by the federal ciga-rette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Tobacco litigation in federal court is not unusual. Cigarette cases regularly are filed in state and federal courts around the country. It is unusual for the first case in the nation against a particular tobacco company to be filed in Maine.

Bangor lawyer Samuel W. Lanham Jr. filed the lawsuit in August 2005 on behalf of Lori A. Spellman of Levant and Stephanie Good and Allain L. Thibodeau, both of Bangor. Each smoked Marlboro Lights for 15 years or more. The plaintiffs are not seeking damages for personal injuries or health problems caused from cigarette smoking.

Instead, the lawsuit alleges that they were hoodwinked into thinking that “light” cigarettes contained less tar and nicotine than full-flavor cigarettes. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory, punitive and other damages.

Woodcock granted summary judgment in the cigarette makers’ favor in 2006. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling the next year and attorneys for the tobacco firm appealed to the nation’s highest court. It was the first case argued during the U.S. Supreme Court’s term last year.

The meeting Wednesday was purely about scheduling — which motions the judge will hear first, when briefs must be filed, how often Woodcock will hold conferences with attorneys, and which attorneys on both sides will act as liaisons from the court to the more than 25 attorneys scattered throughout the country.

The case is not expected to be decided anytime soon.

No hearings in the case will be held until January or February. Once Woodcock rules on whether the facts in a landmark case upheld earlier this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit can be applied to the MDL case, his decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. That decision also could go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Attorneys appeared visibly relieved when Woodcock, a Bangor native, said he would conduct monthly conferences via telephone and they would not have to fly to Bangor.

“I’m sure it would be helpful to the Bangor economy to have you all come her once a month, but I don’t think that’s the most efficient use of your clients’ money,” he said.

By Judy Harrison Bangordailynews

Ontario and Quebec — Canada’s two largest provinces — have announced that they are suing tobacco companies for a total of $80 billion.

The lawsuits are the latest in an effort by the Canadian government to reduce smoking and recover some of the health care costs associated with smoking.

Hide-And-Seek Cigarettes

Customers can buy cigarettes at Wally’s Smoke Shop in Toronto’s West End, but you wouldn’t know it when you walk through the door, because the cigarettes are behind the counter. A law passed last spring means store manager Susan Pak has to keep them hidden behind a bank of white metal doors.

“We don’t have to show the customer,” Pak says. “See, we’re hiding. Over here.”

The government’s idea is that if people don’t see cigarettes, they won’t be tempted to buy them. According to Pak, that policy has helped her sales drop by as much as 10 percent.

The out-of-sight, out-of-mind policy is just one of the things that make Ontario a tough place to buy and sell cigarettes. Over the past few years, the province has put strict limits on advertising, legislated graphic warning labels on cigarette packages and outlawed smoking everywhere except on the street or at home.

Last week, Ontario Attorney General Chris Bentley announced that the government is suing tobacco makers for $50 billion. He pointed to several issues that are in question, including, “What did the tobacco companies know? When did they know it? And what did they tell the people of Ontario about the addictiveness and related effects of tobacco use?”

The Ontario lawsuit draws heavily on secret tobacco company documents released in 1998, when the U.S. government won a $200 billion settlement to recover health care costs. Ontario officials claim that tobacco companies have known since at least 1950 that smoking is addictive and causes disease, and that those facts were deliberately kept secret.

Hypocritical?

Bentley says the province needs the money to pay for smoking-related health costs, which he estimates at $1.6 billion a year. Anti-tobacco campaigners hope the lawsuit will yield even bigger results.

“It will show the industry not to be in the bounds of normal business behavior,” says Michael Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. “There’s no other industry that produces products that have no safe level of use at all, that kill half their long-term users, all with the manufacturer’s full knowledge. So the revelation of that information then creates a huge climate for further regulation of the industry.”

Canadian tobacco manufacturers have not answered the allegations in the lawsuit, but say the government is being hypocritical. Eric Gagnon, a spokesperson for Imperial Tobacco, said Ontario already collects around a billion dollars every year by taxing cigarettes.

“This is sheer hypocrisy by the government,” Gagnon says. “They’re the ones who are licensing the industry, legislating the industry and collecting billions of dollars of taxes. So for them to turn around and with one hand legislate the industry and collect all the taxes, and on the other hand just to turn around and sue the industry is sheer hypocrisy.”

Some smokers say they think Gagnon has a point.

Carol Bragagnolo huddles in the rain outside her office in downtown Toronto, taking a furtive mid-day smoke break.

“I just ran the treadmill this morning,” she says. “If my trainer knew I was doing this.”

Bragagnolo says she started smoking at 19 and doesn’t think the tobacco companies are to blame.

“I think that smoking starts with the individual,” she explains. “My father smoked inside the house, and so I’ve been growing up with secondhand smoke every day of my life, and I know I’m doing it to myself.”

British Columbia and New Brunswick are also planning to sue, and all but one of Canada’s 10 provinces has passed legislation that would allow them to join in the lawsuit. With the tobacco companies gearing up to fight, it will likely be years before the cases are resolved.

© by Anita Elash Npr

MARTINSBURG – Clubs, bars and fraternal organizations will not be forced to ban smoking, thanks to unanimous action taken at Monday’s night’s Berkeley County Health Department meeting.

Just minutes after board member George Karos made a motion not to make a proposed change in the county’s clean indoor air policy, the other four board members also echoed his sentiment, although for a variety of reasons.

At least one person disagreed with the action. Dr. Diana Gaviria, the department’s health officer, said after the meeting she feels board members made the wrong decision.

“This decision was not in the interest of public health. It was in response to a very effective and very vocal opposition. Unfortunately, I don’t think it serves the members of the community well,” Gaviria said.

“The priority of the Board of Health should be public health,” she said.

Before making his motion, Karos said he had read and considered all of the public’s comments. Karos also said the county already has an indoor air ordinance, which was enacted in 2001, and it is working well.

“It is our responsibility as a board to educate, not dictate to the public,” Karos said, adding that he also is concerned about individual rights and liberties.

“As government grows, liberty shrinks. As such, I move not to adopt,” he said, pausing momentarily as the approximately 35 people in the audience clapped in support of his remarks.

Board Chairman John Miller, who said he’d begun smoking at age 14 but managed to quit when he was 27, said his main concern was children and not having them around smoke.

“But since you guys don’t allow anyone under 21 in your clubs, that really isn’t a problem anyhow,” said Miller, who also received applause.

Miller did caution that he would like to see clubs and bars “do your very best to ventilate the building.”

Board member Bob Burkhart, who said he’d also read the public comments with mixed emotions, was also concerned with freedom of choice.

“In the end, if you don’t want to go where the smoke is, stay home,” Burkhart said.

Fellow board member Dr. Joy Buck, a nurse, said she knows there are many good reasons to pass the proposed change and limiting exposure to secondhand smoke.

However, she also said it is important to consider the current economy.

“There is a thin margin right now of profitability. The time is wrong,” Buck said.

Buck said it may be possible to consider phasing in this type of change slowly or at another time, but not now.

Board member Ruby Foltz also voted against the proposal, making it unanimous.

Smoking ban opponent Butch Pennington said after the vote that it proved that local citizens can still have a voice in government and policy decisions.

“It was a hard-fought battle but we won,” he said following the meeting.

Pennington, who owns three clubs and two liquor stores, helped spearhead the movement against the proposed smoking ban, which led to the collection of more than 6,000 signatures on anti-smoking ban petitions.

Freedom of choice was an important issue for many protesters, he said.

“The board members did listen and they did do the right thing … especially given the local economy. Plus people are kind of fed up with big government, so right now really was an inopportune time for something like this for many reasons,” Pennington said.

Four-Corners Club owner Robert Kern said he wasn’t surprised by the vote, because he believed that the five board members would “look at the facts and take public opinion” into consideration before making a decision.

“In the end, I think they made their decision based on what was right and what was wrong,” Kern said following the meeting.

Annemarie Kaim Collins, who had joined others when they protested in front of the county’s Dunn Building against the ban, was all smiles after the vote.

“I’m happy, but really not surprised, because I thought this would happen if everyone just used common sense. Then they would realize that this is the worst possible time to make such a drastic decision,” she said.

Health Department Administrator Bill Kearns said he had received more than 80 comments on the proposal during a 30-day public comment period that ended earlier this month.

Only 35 to 40 percent of the comments supported the proposed smoking ban, he said.

- Staff writer Jenni Vincent can be reached at (304) 263-3381, ext. 138, or jvincent@journal-news.net

India s contribution to the attempt of Facebook landing in trouble comes in the form of a legal notice issued by Hemant Goswami, a social activist and crusader for public health causes.
Apparently, Facebook revokes its policy of not advertising tobacco products. The social networking website allows the various brands and tobacco products to be promoted through member pages and groups. These are visible on all computers, and all terminals installed in India through which the site Facebook.com is accessed.

His statement published in a press release says, Facebook allows promotion of smoking culture through advertisements. We have sent a copy of links of such examples which are considered an offence under the Indian law to M/s Facebook.
Failure of the social networking website Facebook to remove pages and groups relating to various tobacco products, brands and articles is now likely to land the company in legal trouble, it adds.

The Indian law on tobacco control, Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003 mentions imprisonment for up to five years for violating the provisions relating to prohibition of promotion or advertisement of tobacco products and brands.

Article 14 of FCTC, the treaty signed and ratified by 156 countries, calls for complete prohibition of cross border advertisement or promotion of tobacco products and makes it obligatory on all 156 countries which have ratified the treaty to enforce the laws.
Goswamy says, We are very serious in our pursuit to end this kind of promotion of tobacco brands and tobacco products on social networking site like Facebook. To achieve this we will do everything possible.



© Sep 03, 2009 Techtree

Home appliance shops estimate there are now over 100,000 outdoor heaters across the country, many installed since the public smoking ban came into force five years ago.

“100,000 homes all using a standard patio heater on average of one hour per week would generate a carbon footprint of approximately 18 000 tonnes, that’s equivalent to a medium-sized car travelling from Auckland to Wellington and back again around 60, 000 times,” says Kathryn Hailes, from Carbonzero programme.

That’s equivalent to a medium-sized car travelling from Auckland to Wellington and back again around 60 000 times.

“If these households stopped using their patio heaters cost savings could be potentially around $20 million dollars per annum, that’s a lot of savings that people could keep in their back pocket rather than using to heat the ambient temperature of the neighbourhood,” says Ms Hailes.

For some that makes outdoor heaters the backyard equivalent of a gas-guzzling hummer.

“What seems very bizarre about them is that we’re busy insulating our houses so that we can minimise the amount of heat that we need to keep warm and here we are burning fuel outside with not even walls let alone insulation heating up the entire universe,” says Jeanette Fitzsimons, Green Party MP.

Environmentalists say they produce the same volume of climate-changing gases as a speeding truck. They’ve also calculated they consume as much energy as five electric fan heaters on full power.

Overseas it’s become a matter of official concern.

In the UK, some shops have already stopped selling the heaters and politicians in the European parliament are in the process of banning them.

Australia too is wondering if the environmental cost is just too high.

Here in New Zealand there are no plans for a ban but the energy efficiency and conservation authority says it’s keeping a close eye on developments in Australia.

Jeanette Fitzsimons doesn’t support a ban but says she is concerned about the heater’s carbon footprint.

“These gas heaters are quite powerful they do chew through a lot of gas compared with what you would burn to heat your home. There’d be a lot more energy going through an outdoor gas heater than a gas heater in your living room but many in the hospitality industry say business would suffer without outside heating,” says Geoff Tuttle, bar manager.

“We probably have over 50 percent of our business in outdoor trading and on nights like tonight and in the winter it gets a bit nippy. If it’s not wet and still is certainly cold and we need to keep the people warm with the smoking law people do want to be outside and if it’s cold they’re not going to enjoy it.

Customers we spoke to didn’t think a ban was the right way of dealing with the issue.

“It’s a question of personal responsibility of the person using them and that’s one of the things that a price on carbon emissions will start to create as it will raise the price of fuel and then people can decide ‘Do I really want to spend that much on outdoor heating or have I got better things to do with the money and the fuel,’ and for those determined to head outdoors on chilly evenings there’s always the option of putting on another jersey,” says Ms Fitzsimmons.

© 3news

NEW ORLEANS — With the world becoming ever less welcoming for tobacco smoke of all kinds, the owners of specialty shops that sell premium cigars have converged on New Orleans with the same concerns as mass-market cigarette manufacturers – higher taxes and anti-smoking laws.

The cigars at the annual trade show of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association are not the packaged stogies found in an isolated corner of a convenience store. These are hand-rolled smokes – sometimes with Cuban seed tobacco grown in a non-embargoed country – that can go from a couple of bucks to $30 each.

“It’s tough,” said Chris McCalla, legislative director for Columbus, Ga.-based IPCRA, which represents about 1,500 tobacco stores. “People view us in the same category of cigarettes. With a cigar, it’s different. It’s a pleasurable experience. It’s socialization of sorts.”

Mark Twain once said he always tried not to smoke two cigars at once. Winston Churchill smoked cigars in peacetime and wartime. A cigar was more than just a prop for Groucho Marx. John F. Kennedy enjoyed puffing – although he barred the import of Cuban cigars during his showdowns with another cigar aficionado, Fidel Castro, who later claimed to have quit smoking. And, in modern times, Rush Limbaugh often associates himself with a premium cigar.

“The cigar continues to have a unique place in the hearts of a lot of men,” said Norm Sharp, president of the Cigar Association of America, a Washington, D.C.-based trade group of distributors and manufacturers. “There are a lot of aficionados out there.”

And many detractors, including the American Cancer Society, which has said that cigars – as well as pipes – are not a safe substitute for cigarettes and carry much of the same cancer risk.

IPCRA estimates there are 12 to 13 million cigar smokers in the United States, who puff an average of two a week, ranging from several a day to the special-event-only smoker, McCalla said.

When Congress hiked cigarette taxes earlier this year, cigars did not escape the attention of lawmakers, who imposed a tax increase between about 5 cents and 40 cents per cigar. The industry now fears that state legislatures, many of which are trying to close big budget gaps, will follow suit.

“Tobacco is considered low-hanging fruit for taxation,” Sharp said.

And cigars are among the active targets for anti-smoking groups.

Although only Delaware, Washington state and Utah ban puffing in tobacco establishments, the city of Galveston, Texas, recently passed a clean air ordinance that forbids smoking in a planned cigar lounge – a store that provides a room for cigar-lovers to visit and enjoy their tobacco.

Owner Charlie Head, who plans to open Sept. 1 after his previous store was wiped out by Hurricane Ike, said it’s ridiculous to think people who don’t smoke would even come inside his business, which includes lockers for smokers to store their cigars and liquor they bring in.

“We’re going ahead with it,” Head said. “But a big part of our business is locker rental.”

Head said he hoped to win an exemption for his shop before the ban takes effect on Jan. 1.

Even before the spread of cigarette smoking bans, cigars and pipes received a chilly reception in many places. Airliners that used to permit cigarettes wouldn’t allow cigars and pipes. And many smoking bars today are actually cigarette-only bars – don’t light up that cigar or pipe, a sign often says.

As a result, cigar smoking has become largely a private activity, McCalla said, with the cigar lounge or cigar bar a popular gathering place.

“Most cigar smokers would like to sit down comfortably and smoke with others,” he said.

The recession has cut into business, said Doug Winston, manager of the New Orleans Cigar Co., a 700-square-foot store in the downtown district. To start with, go-outside-to-smoke rules are making shorter cigars more popular.

“With the tax and the economy, people also seem to be going to the lesser-expensive cigars,” Winston said.

As for the convention itself, which is hosting about 4,000 people through Wednesday, smoking will be allowed in the exhibit hall between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. But members of the public aren’t invited to the meeting – and no one under 18 will be let in, McCalla said.

Smoking pot can cause as much damage to cells and DNA as tobacco smoke, according to a group of Canadian researchers who are challenging the belief that marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes.

Rebecca Maertens, a researcher from Health Canada and co-author of the study, says many Canadians believe marijuana smoke is less toxic, and causes less damage than tobacco because pot is “natural.”

Despite several experiments that show marijuana use to have adverse health effects, the prevalence of marijuana use in Canada has increased over the past decade, while the incidence of tobacco use has decreased.

Nearly one quarter of Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 reported using marijuana in the previous 12 months according to 2006 Statistics Canada report — over 14 per cent of those said they used the drug on a daily basis.

The team behind this new study suggested that a lack of understanding about the dangers of marijuana plays a part in why youth are so cavalier about smoking it.

Neither marijuana nor the main psychoactive component of the plant, THC, has been shown to cause cancer.

There are, however, substances in marijuana that can be very harmful to a person, according to previous studies on the drug.

Negative health effects induced by smoking marijuana, such as chronic bronchitis, have been well documented, as have other negative health effects.

A 2007 study from New Zealand, for example, examined the effects of cannabis on lung capacity. The results suggested that marijuana smoke compromised lung efficiency between 2.5 and five times more than tobacco smoke.

Despite some knowledge surrounding marijuana’s adverse effects on human lungs, researchers still have little knowledge about the plant’s potential to cause lung cancer, Maertens said.

This is due in part to the difficulty researchers have had in identifying and following subjects who have smoked only marijuana, she said.

In this study, scientists exposed animal cells and bacteria separately to smoke from marijuana and tobacco plants.

Although marijuana smoke caused significantly more damage to cells and DNA than tobacco, according to the researchers, only tobacco smoke caused chromosome damage.

But marijuana advocate Marc Emery dismissed the study when contacted Wednesday night.

“Where is the proof of this DNA damage to Canadians? Are there mutations in the 15 million Canadians who have smoked marijuana in the last 45 years?” said publisher of Cannabis Culture Magazine in an e-mail to Canwest News Service.

“Cannabis consumption completely prevents Alzheimer’s disease, cleans the lungs by shrinking tumours and breaks down necrotic cells and clears them out of the lungs. Millions of Canadians use cannabis for relief of symptoms of multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, chemotherapy, opiate medications, and numerous other ailments . . . This study is false and is in fact blatant lies once again from the least trustworthy source of health information in Canada — the lackeys at Health Canada.”

Emery is on a cross-Canada farewell tour before he surrenders to U.S. narcotics officials to face charges in that country.


© Ottawacitizen