THE ban on the display of tobacco products in large stores could be delayed for as long as three years due to legal wrangles with tobacco manufacturers, the Scottish Government has admitted. Public health minister Michael Matheson said the government had been forced to put back the original launch date for larger retailers of 1 April this year – but said today that it hoped to bring in the ban in all stores within three years. An exact date will be finalised in due course. Smaller shops already had a later start date of 1 April 2015 to give retailers time to prepare.

The ban, which will now be introduced in the same year as similar laws in England, will make it an offence for retailers to display tobacco or smoking related products.

The government also revealed that retailers will be able to access tobacco products through a window measuring no more than 1,000 cm sq – about the size of eight to 12 cigarette packets – and confirmed that shopkeepers who breach the ban would face a £200 fine – rising by a further £200 for every offence committed under the legislation within a two year period.

“Combined with the range of other measures set out in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, this will make cigarettes less attractive and accessible to young people,” said Matheson. “We recognise some retailers had concerns about the practicalities of limiting display size during a sale. We listened and believe we have now struck an appropriate balance between making cigarettes less attractive and retailers’ views.

“Following these discussions and bearing in mind the need to notify new regulations to the EU and the fact of the ongoing legal proceedings, we feel it prudent to defer the ban from the original implementation date for large stores to a date to be announced.”

Vicky Crichton, public affairs manager at Cancer Research UK, said: “Displaying cigarettes next to ordinary groceries can encourage young people to take up smoking, a deadly habit that is the biggest preventable cause of cancer. Putting tobacco products out of sight will stop children being tempted to buy cigarettes and help to protect future generations from a lethal addiction.”

Forget the long nights during finals week, powered by coffee and cigarettes. The University of California system is banning smoked and smokeless tobacco on its 10 campuses — that’s each and every one across the state, according to reports. The San Jose Mercury News was first on the scoop that UC President Mark Yudoff told campus chancellors this week that the ban will begin in 2014. Smoking’s not a huge problem at UC currently: only about eight percent of students and 10 percent of faculty and staff light up from time to time.

Nonetheless, the university will prohibit the use as well as sales and advertising for tobacco on all buildings owned or rented by the school.

It’s not yet known if students lighting up in defiance of the rules will be fined or face sanctions, according to reports. Other than, you know, coughing.

Firefighters have fought three apartment fires in the past week (during Fire Prevention Week), all caused by the careless disposal of cigarettes. The Metro Omaha Tobacco Action Coalition is calling for property owners to implement smoke-free policies for their rental properties. Some managers are already doing it. The latest blaze happened Friday morning at the LionsHead Apartments near 112th and Lafayette where 20 people were forced from 10 units due to the fire that started on a second-story balcony shortly before 2:30 a.m.

If you smoke cigarettes, than enjoy the cheapest camel cigarettes, buy online Camel cigs online and smoke premium tobacco.

Mary Kennedy lives in a multi-family unit at North Acres Apartments at 108th and Fort streets and says she is very careful when she smokes and puts out cigarettes. “I let everything cool off before I empty it and it goes with me out to the circle, that way cigarettes don’t get thrown out.”

Not everyone is that careful. Three times in a week apartment fires have been caused by careless smokers. Firefighters say all could have been prevented if people would just use common sense.

“Yes, it’s common sense, it is a hot item, it is an ember glowing inside a cigarette we need to discard,” says OFD Capt. Shane McClanahan. “It’s just like we would turn off the stove at home when we’re done with it or your lighter or fireplace, a campfire you put out when you’re done. It’s the same thing.”

North Acres is owned and managed by the Douglas County Housing Authority. Some smoking is allowed, but soon smoking will be banned in all units.

“Starting in January of 2012 they were all notified we’ll be making it more restrictive,” said Joan Bertolini with the Douglas County Housing Authority. “No one will be allowed to smoke at all in their units and we’ll have a designated smoking area outside at each of out multi-family complexes.”

Kennedy doesn’t like the new restrictions. “They don’t like us smoking here on the porch, which is okay, but when it’s cold and rainy it’s really hard not to smoke, but to come out and get soaked.”

She’s aware of the three smoking-related fires in apartment buildings and believes the tighter restrictions will help keep her and her family safer.

The Douglas County Housing Authority has had some kind of non-smoking policy in their units since 2007.

A Greene County judge has upheld Springfield’s smoking ban, but a bar owner who sued to stop it is expected to continue the legal fight while other opponents look for a political solution. Greene County Judge Jason Brown ruled Wednesday that the ban, which was approved by voters in April, did not violate state law. The ban, which took effect June 11, generally prohibits smoking inside any place where people work or where the public has access, as well as outdoors in playgrounds and other areas.

Jean Doublin, the owner of Ruthie’s Bar, sued to stop the ban, claiming it violates a state law that allows taverns to make nonsmoking areas unavailable indoors as long as signs are posted that say “Nonsmoking Areas Are Unavailable.” Ruthie’s has such signs on its doors.

Doublin said Wednesday that she has lost close to 75 percent of her business since the ban took effect.

Doublin’s attorney, Jonathan Sternberg, had previously said he would appeal if Brown ruled against his client. He had offered the same argument in a case that sought to stop implementation of a smoking ban in Kansas City. But the argument was ultimately struck down by the Western District of Missouri Appeals Court.

Brown wrote in his ruling that he doesn’t entirely accept the city’s contention that it has the authority to ban smoking, but he felt bound by the appeals court decision in the Kansas City case.

Sternberg has said that an appeal in the Springfield case will go to a different appeals court, which he hopes will issue a different ruling.

The Springfield News-Leader reports that supporters of the ban said Brown’s ruling adds to growing legal precedents that allow cities to enforce a smoking ban.

“I think it’s a continued victory for public health, which is what we view this ordinance to be,” said Stephen Hall, communications director for the American Heart Association in Springfield.

Dave Myers of Live Free Springfield, which opposes the ban, said he believes the best option for doing away with the ordinance continues to be getting the City Council to repeal or amend it. The council is expected to take up proposed changes in November.

Councilwoman Cindy Rushefsky said any changes to the law wouldn’t have a unanimous vote required for it to pass.

ANTI-SMOKING campaigners have far from finished their battle with the tobacco industry, with some pushing for a ”licence to smoke” and many predicting that cigarettes could be outlawed within a decade.
With the federal government’s plans to introduce plain packaging for cigarettes expected to be challenged in the High Court, health experts are advocating even tougher restrictions, saying that public support is growing to ban tobacco. Professor Simon Chapman, an anti-smoking campaigner from the University of Sydney, says a smoking ban could be a reality within 10 to 15 years, and believes a licensing scheme would pave the way.

”The government should consider issuing smokers with a licence to smoke, which would involve them passing a test, not dissimilar to a driving test,” Professor Chapman said.
”They would get a swipe card with their photo on it and – just like the pre-commitment gambling card – they could say how much they wanted to smoke a day. If it was 10 cigarettes a day you’d get a category one licence, 20 cigarettes would be a category two and there would be a higher cost to the card if you wanted to smoke more. The most anyone could buy would be 60 a day.”
Mike Daube, president of the Australian Council on Smoking and Health and deputy chairman of the federal government’s National Preventative Health Taskforce, backed the scheme but said the onus should also be on the tobacco industry to clean up its act. ”You could give them 10 years in which to produce a product that is acceptable by any health standards and if they can’t do that then their product will be treated like any other product and may no longer be sold,” Professor Daube said.
”The way smoking trends are going, it’s not unrealistic to think that we should see an end to [the] commercial sale of cigarettes within 10 to 15 years.”
About 17 per cent of Australians smoke, and a ban would cost the government about $6 billion a year in lost revenue. This would be offset by health savings, as the annual smoking-related medical burden tops $31 billion.
The licensing push has angered smokers’ groups and civil libertarians, who say consumers should not be victimised for using a legal product, and such extreme measures could fuel the black market in illegal tobacco.
But worldwide, there are growing anti-tobacco moves, from banning tobacco advertising to phasing out smoking entirely. A New Zealand parliamentary committee has recommended a total ban by 2025.
In Singapore, the country’s top lung cancer surgeons and specialists have proposed making it illegal for anyone born after 2000 to buy tobacco products. With a study showing 70 per cent of Singaporeans support the move, the Ministry of Health is considering it.
And in Finland, the government has declared the country will be smoke-free by 2040, introducing tough laws to reach the goal, including jail terms for giving children cigarettes and a ban on vending machines.
Paul Duggan, 45, has started the Australian Smokers Rights Party on Facebook and hopes to get enough support to turn it into a political party. ”I had a sneaking feeling that non-smokers were going to get more and more aggressive in the next five, 10, 15 years and I felt that the only way to combat it, because of all the hysteria, would be to get one or two people in the federal Senate fighting for smokers,” he said.
The vice-president of Liberty Victoria, Anne O’Rourke, rejected a licensing scheme. ”Over-policing people’s behaviour, particularly when the product is legal, is likely to be viewed by many as the state over-reaching … so it’s unlikely to work.”
Louise Warburton, spokeswoman for British American Tobacco, said forcing smokers to obtain a licence could lead to an increase in the illegal tobacco trade as smokers sought to bypass bans.
The tobacco industry is spending an about $20 million fighting the government’s proposed plain packaging laws, and is set to face further battles as public health group Action on Smoking and Health told The Sunday Age of plans to push for further tax increases and the removal of additives that make cigarettes more palatable.
Smokers are increasingly running out of places to enjoy their habit. Last month, owners of a Sydney apartment block introduced a bylaw making the entire complex smoke-free.
Quit Victoria executive director Fiona Sharkie said a smoker’s licence had merit but the group first wants a ban on smoking in al fresco dining areas and to limit cigarette sales to a small number of licensed outlets. She said if the number of smokers declined to about 5 per cent of the population then a ban should be considered.

The University of Oregon announced plans Wednesday to ban smoking and all tobacco on campus by 2012. UO is the first school in the Pac-10 Conference to announce such an endeavor. However, students and faculty won’t be expected to go cold turkey, as the University will offer help to those who need it during the transition.

Wednesday’s announcement comes on the heels of a new report that shows Oregon ranks 25th in the nation in funding smoking cessation and prevention programs. According to the study, Oregon spends just over $7 million, well short of the $43 million recommended by the Center for Disease Control.

Starting in 2011, tobacco use will be banned from all parks across the city of Roseburg and violators could be looking at a hefty fine. Roseburg city councilors passed a park system tobacco ban at a meeting Monday night, November 8th, 2010. The ban prohibits all tobacco use in all 23 of Roseburg’s parks beginning on January 1st, 2010. Violators of the ban could be subject to citation of up to $1,500. Roseburg Police will be in charge of handing out those citations.

A local judge would ultimately decide on how much the citation would be issued for. Case by case, the citation could go down from $1,500 to as low as $1 or be dropped entirely, depending on the judgment.

How police will enforce the ban is the next big question.

“People are smoking in the parks, we’re going to let them know, they can’t do that,” says Sergeant Aaron Dunbar, a spokesman for the Roseburg Police Department.

Sgt. Dunbar says the police department is hoping that the ban will be self-enforced. For those caught smoking, police say they’ll give out several warnings, pushing education about the new city ordinance.

“We’re not planning on jumping into enforcement January 1st and going out and writing a bunch of tickets,” says Sgt. Dunbar. “We want people to understand there is a rule change, there’s a new ordinance, so they have an opportunity to comply with that new ordinance before we begin writing tickets.”

The smoking ban was originally proposed by Roseburg Parks & Recreation managers this summer. Discussion arose after Roseburg Public Works renovated the Stewart Park playground. New benches at the park have attracted more smoking and cigarette butts littering the ground. Park managers have also expressed concern about second-hand smoke outdoors.

For many smokers we spoke with today, it’s a split decision as to their thoughts on the ban. Some understand the reason behind it and accept it, while others say their rights are being taken away.

“It’s supposed to be a free country, not an imperialist country,” says Michael Garfield a smoker and Roseburg resident.

“You should have the right to smoke, drink beer, smoke marijuana, but no, they keep telling you ‘you can’t do that.’ What are they going to do, start prohibition on cigarettes?” says Garfield.

Meanwhile, another smoker, Robert Campbell says he’s not surprised, as smokers have been pushed out of different areas and sections for years.

“Being a tobacco user myself I guess I just have to go where I’m allowed. It seems like a kind of steep fine, but then again, once the law is imposed, what are you going to do?” says Campbell.

Roseburg city councilors debated the fine’s maximum price at Monday night’s council meeting. The fine is congruent with current municipal code for any park violation.

Councilors were not able to make a decision on lowering the fine, but say they’d like to re-address it.

The Food and Grocery Council says banning all visible tobacco retail displays makes current commercial agreements ineffective. MPs have revealed radical plans to cut the smoking rate, including banning displays, putting tobacco products in plain packaging and extending non-smoking areas to cars. The council says the move could potentially deny companies the use of their trademarks.

“We believe that this approach is an overly punitive measure that will introduce significant costs to the supply chain,” Food and Grocery chief executive Katherine Rich said.

The precedent of legislating to void commercial grocery contract agreements concerns the council, said Rich.

“From the perspective of New Zealand grocery suppliers, it’s a serious intervention for any government to cut across existing commercial contracts and to change commercial laws to void supermarket supply agreements, which are largely standard regardless of the grocery product.”

And she said plain packaging raises wider issues for all brand owners selling grocery products in New Zealand.

“Denying grocery businesses the right to use their trademarks will mean that New Zealand could be buying into an international intellectual property debate that will put our trade officials in a difficult position.”

The New Zealand Association of Convenience Stores (NZACS) said it supports recommendations to increase penalties for selling tobacco to minors, but doesn’t support recommendations that force significant costs onto retailers.

Chairman Roger Bull said NZACS believes it is relatively simple solution to better enforce existing tobacco regulations.

“If there was greater enforcement, backed by retailer education of the existing laws, then tobacco products can be kept out of the hands of young people.”

Bull said officials seem to be intent on wanting to force additional laws and regulations “that will result in significant costs and red-tape onto New Zealand retailers who sell tobacco”.

“Forcing retailers to cough up thousands of dollars to hide tobacco away from their customers will do little aside from placing greater risks on retailers who will be forced to constantly hunt for a product that makes up to 40% of their sales.”

Tobacco products are to be hidden and anti-smoking officers will get powers to instantly fine shops under get-tough measures announced by the Government. Associate Health Minister Tariana Turia said that Cabinet had backed a package of legislation to tighten tobacco controls. Mrs Turia hopes to introduce the legislation to Parliament before Christmas. Once passed, any visible display of tobacco products for sale will be banned.

Do you agree with the ban on tobacco displays? Here is the latest selection of Your Views:
Harry (New Zealand)
10:42AM Friday, 05 Nov 2010:
I like it in principle, but in practice it means that they’ll be hidden at some obscure counter somewhere in supermarkets.
Then, when I join a queue thinking it is the shortest, the person in front of me will by their tub of ice cream or whatever and then say, “And a packet of blah blah 25s and XXXX tobacco.”

Then everything stops for 5 minutes while the assistant hunts down the person with the right key or access to the cigarette hidey hole.

There should be a separate queue for people buying tobacco at the supermarket, then I’d back the ‘no display’ idea 100%.

GG(New Zealand)
10:43AM Friday, 05 Nov 2010:
This is a great idea and long overdue. I am sure that the retailers can put the cost of any new shelving back onto the tobacco wholesaler.

However, I do wonder how they could accommodate the new law at the Duty Free area of the Airport where cigarette boxes are virtually shoved at you from every direction.

Material from: www.nzherald.co.nz