The Bay Area Council On Drugs and Alcohol was awarded the Tobacco Environmental Coalition grant from the Department of State and Health Services. The TEC prevents and reduces the illegal and harmful use of tobacco products in communities across Texas by promoting and conducting community-based environmental prevention strategies that have an impact on the social, cultural, political and economic processes of the community.

Coalitions broaden support for community projects and increase credibility, provide volunteers for activities, and maximize the power of participating groups through joint action. Coalitions are especially important when engaging in broad community actions to change public policy.

The coalition will conduct evidence-based strategies and evaluate activities in League City that address two major goals: Eliminate exposure to secondhand smoke; and reduce tobacco use among populations with the highest burden of tobacco-related health disparities.

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.

When it comes to the environment in this year’s election, most attention has focused on whether California voters will suspend the state’s landmark global warming law by approving Proposition 23. But a new battle is emerging in the final weeks before Nov. 2 over another ballot question opponents contend would force ordinary citizens — rather than big corporations — to pay for environmental cleanup, public health problems, traffic and other harm industry creates.

Largely overlooked until now, Proposition 26 would expand the definition of taxes so that more fees imposed by state and local governments would require a two-thirds vote by the Legislature or local voters.
Supporters, led by California Chamber of Commerce and oil companies, say tighter rules are needed to stop politicians from raising costs on a wide variety of products, from cell phones to gasoline to food.
“What Proposition 26 does is to protect consumers from these hidden taxes that state and local politicians disguise as fees,” said Beth Miller, a spokeswoman for the Yes on 26 campaign.
Critics call it a bailout for big business.
“I think Proposition 26 is as damaging as Proposition 23 is to California’s environmental protection efforts,” said Bill Magavern, state director of Sierra Club California. “It would block state and local governments from making polluters pay to clean up the damage they cause and to fund cleaner alternatives.”
Californians pay a wide variety of fees, many for environmental oversight. Motorists buying new tires pay $1.75 a tire, for example, to fund state programs to recycle old tires.
Some cities charge fees on businesses that sell alcohol to pay for police and public education programs to reduce drunkenness.
Depending on how Proposition 26 is interpreted by courts, many such fees could require two-thirds.
“By expanding the scope of what is considered a tax, the measure would make it more difficult for state and local governments to pass new laws that raise revenues,” the non-partisan state Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote.
“This change would affect many environmental, health, and other regulatory fees.”
The LAO said the measure could reduce state and local revenues by “up to billions of dollars annually,” including $1 billion this year because it is retroactive to Jan. 1.
In recent weeks, as Proposition 23 — bankrolled largely by Texas oil companies Tesoro and Valero — has struggled to gain traction, other oil companies, along with tobacco and alcohol firms, have poured money into Proposition 26.
State campaign finance records show in the last month, Chevron and the American Beverage Association have each donated $2 million; Philip Morris $750,000; Conoco-Phillips $500,000; Anheuser Busch $500,000; Occidental Petroleum $250,000; and Shell Oil $200,000.
The companies are funding a joint campaign seeking to pass Proposition 26 and to defeat Proposition 25, which would allow the California Legislature to pass a budget each year with a simple majority rather than the current two-thirds super-majority.
In all, that campaign has raised roughly $16.8 million — nearly half of it coming since Oct. 1.
The No on 26 campaign has raised roughly $2.3 million. Major donors to the no campaign include the state Democratic Party, which put in $1 million, and the Service Employees International Union, which contributed $500,000.
Proposition 26 is endorsed by the California Taxpayers Association, California Forestry Association, the Wine Institute, California Grocers Association and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
Opponents include the League of Women Voters, American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, California Labor Federation, Sierra Club and California Professional Firefighters.
The issue of what is a fee or tax has been contentious for years.
In the early 1990s, former Gov. Pete Wilson signed a law placing a fee on companies that made lead paint or gasoline, with the money paying for programs to screen children for lead poisoning and to reduce sources of lead in buildings.
Sinclair Paint sued, arguing the charge was a tax requiring two-thirds vote under California’s landmark 1978 measure, Proposition 13, because it provided broad public benefit. The state Supreme Court in 1997 rejected that argument, however, and said government may impose fees on companies that make contaminating products to help offset health effects from those products.
Proposition 26 would not affect fees already on the books, although many could not be increased without a two-thirds vote. Nor would it affect fees paid by industry to specifically fund inspectors or permits.
The Proposition 26 website says politicians would “have to get a two-thirds vote at the state level or voter approval at the local level for most increases.” Asked to name specific state fees that would be affected, Miller, of the yes campaign would not provide details.
Critics say the measure could nullify fees on cigarettes that fund programs to keep kids from smoking, fees on cell phones to beef up 911 systems, and fees on developers to fund traffic lights.
“Those who are responsible for the harm are responsible for cleaning it up. It’s a principle everybody understands,” said Janis Hirohama, chairwoman of the California League of Women Voters. “If your kid spills a glass of milk, they should clean it up.”

The campus smoking ban isn’t estimated to have any effect for at least two years, if it even makes it to a definite decision. But as a smoker, the very idea of a campus ban upsets me. I used to hate cigarettes, but somehow I fell into the bad habit. I’ll quit eventually, but in the mean time I would like to enjoy my cigarettes.
I try to be a courteous smoker on campus. I sit away from groups of nonsmokers or I try to smoke in areas with ashtrays in hopes that a nonsmoker won’t pass by, but it’s unavoidable.

The majority of campus doesn’t smoke, and I respect that. But placing limits on where I can enjoy my cigarette OUTSIDE is ridiculous.
I can’t smoke in a bar, or a restaurant, or any building for that matter, and I can’t smoke within 50 feet of doorway. That’s fine. Not everyone wants to be stuffed in a 12 feet by 15 feet room with me while I smoke a cigarette.
But when I’m outside I expect to be able to enjoy my cigarette as I please. Campus not only serves as an educational facility, but also as a home.
Banning smoking on campus, especially around dorms, is like telling the smoking community you can’t smoke in the comfort of your own home.
There is plenty of space outside of the dorms for smokers and nonsmokers to enjoy their air as they like AND be courteous to one another.
Nonsmokers do a lot of complaining, but take no action except to slap a ban on smoking.Nonsmokers should be more proactive about avoiding cigarette smoke if it bothers them that much.
For instance, don’t walk right behind someone if they are smoking. If there is a smoker in the breezeway at the Miller Learning Center, go in the first door you come to instead of walking by them. There are plenty of ways to avoid the smoke.
I can only speak for myself when I say that I will try to be respectful of others while enjoying my daily dose of nicotine.
But it would be nice if the nonsmokers could be respectful of me as well.

SOUTH PORTLAND — Two candidates for governor on Friday said they would support an increase in the cigarette tax, while two others said they would have to consider the idea within the context of the economy and other taxes. Independents Shawn Moody and Kevin Scott told the American Lung Association of Maine at a forum that they would support an increase in the tax in an effort to get more people — especially teens — to kick the habit.

“Let’s increase that tobacco tax as long as the dollars go where they are intended,” Moody said during an hour-long forum at the Sable Oaks Marriott.

Scott agreed.

“I have advocated for an increase in the tobacco tax,” he said. “I think that would be one way to moderate some behavior.”

But the other two candidates who attended — Democrat Libby Mitchell and independent Eliot Cutler — were less inclined to embrace an immediate hike.

“This might not be the right time to raise a cigarette tax,” Mitchell said. “However, as governor, I would not rule it out.”

Cutler said increases in the gas tax and cigarette tax need to be considered “on a case by case basis.”

“We must build the strongest possible fences around those receipts so they are not used for broader purposes,” he said.

Republican Paul LePage did not attend the forum, but said at a debate in September that he would oppose a cigarette tax hike. LePage Press Secretary Dan Demeritt said Friday that campaign meetings prevented LePage from attending the forum, but that the Waterville mayor would consider lowering the cigarette tax if the state could afford the loss in revenue. However, his initial focus would be on reducing the income tax and the tax on pensions, he said.

The issue of whether to raise the cigarette tax is a perennial one at the State House, where groups such as the Tobacco-Free Kids Action Fund and others often advocate for increases to try to keep teens from buying cigarettes.

Statistics circulated by the group on Friday indicated that tobacco use claims 2,200 Maine lives each year and costs the state more than $600 million in health care costs annually. It’s estimated 18 percent of the state’s high school students are smokers.

The forum, moderated by Mal Leary of Capitol News Service, covered other health care topics such as the new federal reforms and state-level health offices.

The candidates were asked whether they would continue to keep the state’s Office of Health Policy and Finance within the executive branch. Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, created the office at the beginning of his administration in 2003.

“We need the office of health policy now more than ever as we transition from Dirigo to a new (federal) exchange,” Mitchell said. “You have to have leadership and it has to come from the executive level.”

Cutler said the new governor should choose strong commissioners who could lead such efforts within their own departments.

“I tend not to believe we ought to have czars and czarinas,” he said.

Scott and Moody both said they would keep the office. Moody said he would “move it in a new direction.”

“We can’t wait until 2014,” he said, referring to the year when most of the federal reforms will go into effect. “We’re in a crisis right now.”

Indonesia, with one of the highest smoking rates in the world, plans to raise its tobacco excise tax by five percent next year to help meet state revenue targets, a senior official said Wednesday.
Cigarettes sell for about a dollar a packet in Indonesia, where 60 percent of men are estimated to smoke along with a “disturbing” number of children, according to the Asia Pacific Association for the Control of Tobacco (APACT).

Finance ministry official Agus Supriyanto told Dow Jones Newswires the excise level was likely to rise five percent on average next year in what is the world’s fifth-largest tobacco market.
Customs chief Thomas Sugijata said the increase would help meet the country’s excise revenue target of 60.7 trillion rupiah (6.8 billion dollars) — up four trillion rupiah (448 trillion dollars).
But he said the final excise rate had still to be decided and was subject to discussion with the industry, which employs millions of people in the archipelago.
“We’re still discussing the rate increase and will ask for inputs from industry, but we can promise that the increase will be moderate,” Sugijata said.
For 2010 the government aimed to reduce cigarette production to 240 billion sticks from 245 billion last year.
The current excise level per cigarette ranges from 65 to 320 rupiah (0.007 to 0.035 dollars).
Analysts said the rise was unlikely to have much impact on major producers such as Gudang Garam, Sampoerna and Djarum, which benefit from customer loyalty and efficient distribution networks.

Source: www.google.com

Cleveland police and health officials caught five merchants in a sting Wednesday targeting shops that break open packs of cigarettes and sell them one at a time. The practice of selling “looseys” is commonplace in the city but it is illegal. Police and health department workers hit 13 shops. Clerks in seven of the stores would not sell looseys to undercover agents. One official said he thinks word of the operation spread quicker than cigarette smoke in a crowded room.

City Health Director Matt Carroll said the single sale of cigarettes is one of the main reasons that young people start smoking. Part of the reason for the operation was to discourage young people from smoking by making it more expensive.
Officials will conduct more stings monthly in different parts of the city.
Merchants break open a pack of cigarettes — the popular $5.32 a pack Maverick brand for example — and sell looseys for 50 cents to a $1.
The merchants can get $10 or $20 off of a pack of cigarettes that way without paying extra taxes. It’s a fourth-degree misdemeanor in Cleveland, punishable by a fine starting at $100. It’s also a violation of state and federal law to sell anything less than a full pack of cigarettes.
Assad Nader, owner of the 1 Stop Market, 3744 E. 144th St., seemed shocked when police cited him for selling cigarettes to undercover agents.
“What? You’re kidding,” he said. “Every store in the city sells them this way. My customers have no money. They can’t afford a pack of cigarettes. We’re in a recession man.”
Nader, who said he has run the store for 25 years, told police that 90 percent of his customers buy looseys.
“Come on, this is crazy,” he said. “But could you also mention I have a sale going on 40-ounce beers?”
Other stores where citations were issued were: the Cedar Deli, 3750 E. 140th St.; the Times Square Food Market, 3832 Martin Luther King Blvd.; the Miles Mini-Mart, 11334 Miles Ave. and the Harvard Marathon, 4025 E. 93rd St.

Manila (27 September) — The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) through its President Oscar D. Tinio, M.D. expressed full support to President Benigno Aquino III’s call for higher ‘sin’ taxes to generate additional tax revenue for the government. This came following the PMA’s issuance of a nationwide resolution prohibiting medical practitioners from smoking over the weekend.

President Aquino had earlier said he favors an increase in taxes for tobacco products and alcohol, adding that it wouldn’t harm lovers of tobacco or alcohol if they have to pay more in the future because this would be employed to reduce the consumption of something socially unwanted.
The government has yet to make its stance clear about the sin tax but health officials claim that sin tax would substantially diminish consumption of cigarettes and spirits.
“The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) believes that taxes on tobacco should be raised in order to cut down on the high smoking rate and the resultant high social costs. More than P270 billion is being spent not only on hospitalization, due to smoking-related diseases, but the loss of productivity as well,” Tinio said.
“There is a significant imbalance on how much government spends on diseases and productivity losses caused by tobacco compared to the P27 billion revenue that government is getting from the industry” Tinio added.
Meanwhile, in another interview Tinio was asked to comment on President Aquino’s smoking habit. He responded “in fairness to the President, after the issue on his smoking was raised by tri-media, we have not seen him smoke in public. On the other hand, we at the Philippine Medical Association are aware that even as I speak now there are doctors who smoke in public, even worst in front of their patients. This advocacy on smoking should first start within our ranks so that we will have the moral ascendancy to speak against the ills of tobacco not only to our patients but to other groups or professions as well,” Tinio finally said. (PIA)

Source of article: www.pia.gov.ph