CMS expands Medicaid coverage for smoking cessation services

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has informed state Medicaid directors of new smoking cessation services and reminded them that Medicaid programs are now required to fully cover those services for pregnant women.

The Centers for Disease Control estimates that smoking results in more than $96 billion in healthcare services annually and costs another $97 billion in lost productivity. While 45 of 51 Medicaid programs already offer some form of smoking cessation services or coverage, most beneficiaries and doctors aren't aware of them. A 2004 study found that 36 percent of Medicaid-enrolled smokers and 60 percent of Medicaid physicians knew that their state Medicaid program offered any coverage for tobacco-dependence treatment.

CMS also wants to increase awareness among doctors and pregnant women that these benefits are now required by law under health reform.

“In pregnant women, smoking can cause serious complications,” said CMS Administrator Donald M. Berwick, MD, in a blog post touting the new regulations. “Babies born to mothers who smoke are more likely to be lower birth weight, have lung problems and other health problems. They’re more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome.”

To help get the word out to all Medicaid-covered smokers, CMS is making federal Medicaid matching funds available to states for the costs associated with telephone services.

“We urge all states to offer comprehensive cessation benefits, including telephone quitlines, to all Medicaid recipients and to aggressively promote the availability of the services in order to achieve the maximum public health benefit,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a statement. “There is strong evidence that Medicaid coverage to help smokers quit is highly cost-effective and saves money.”

Myers cited a Massachusetts program, which has provided Medicaid coverage of smoking cessation services since 2006, that saw a 26 percent decline in the smoking rate among beneficiaries in the first two-and-a-half years. Those who used the benefit also showed a 46 percent decrease in hospitalizations for heart attacks and a 49 percent decrease in hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease.

To help guide the states in covering smoking cessation programs and treatments, CMS is recommending guidelines proposed in a May 2008 Public Health Service report, “Treating Tobacco Use and Dependence: 2008 Update: A Clinical Practice Guideline.”

Anti-smoking groups praise Aussie PM

The Smokefree Coalition and New Zealand Public Health Association (PHA) have applauded Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard for refusing to back down against tobacco industry threats to sue over cigarette packaging legislation.
Tobacco giant Phillip Morris is planning to sue the Australian government over legislation requiring increased health warnings on cigarette packets, saying the packaging will stop it standing out from competitors. The PHA, Smokefree Coalition and the Cancer Society are calling for the New Zealand Government to follow in Australia’s footsteps and introduce plain, unbranded cigarette packaging.

Dr Stone says the tobacco industry will be hit “really hard” by the plain packaging and will use “whatever tactics they can” to stop the legislation.
PHA National Executive Director Dr Gay Keating says it is “beyond immoral” that Phillip Morris is threatening court action in what she says is a “mercenary attempt” to continue to attract Australians to smoking.
“The PHA applauds Canberra for its courage and leadership in standing up to the bully tactics of big tobacco,” she says.

Smokefree Coalition executive director Dr Prudence Stone says Julia Gillard has the moral high ground and her actions are a good example for our Government.
“She’s saying, ‘We don’t care who or how big you think you are; a business that causes death is not as big as a country that prevents it.’”
Philip Morris is a US company, and is using a bilateral investment treaty that Australia signed with Hong Kong in 1991 to bring the case in an offshore international tribunal.

New Zealand has a similar bilateral investment treaty with Hong Kong that was signed in 1995, and the Green Party is warning that corporations could take the New Zealand Government to court over legislation that isn’t in their favour.

UT to implement stricter smoking policy

Smokers may lose their favorite place to light up on the University of Toledo campus, starting on August 15. That's when a new tobacco policy will go into effect.

The Health Science campus has been tobacco-free since 2006 but the foundation is now in place, literally, for a stricter policy on the main campus and its satellite branches.

You will notice digging going on between the Nash, White, and Dowd residence life buildings. Under construction is an outside shelter that will keep smokers confined.

It is one of only seven areas on the main campus where smoking will be allowed.

UT senior Jeff Schlekie responded to the stricter policy, saying, "You know, too many people do smoke cigarettes at the front door entrances all the time, so this should help."

The policy was created to reduce the effects of secondhand smoke and help students and employees cut back or quit smoking.

Junior Matthew Ellis is ready for the change, saying, "A lot of times they don't stay 30 feet away from the building, especially if it is raining or something. They will be right by the doors, and I personally can't stand the smell of smoke."

The university says the new policy will be "consistently" enforced among all students, faculty, staff, and visitors. But there will be those who do not support it, including sophomore Spencer Wotring, who says it's not time to take away some of the freedom to puff away.

"No, I don't think it's a good idea because smoking is not illegal and it's an addiction for most people so they really can't help it. I mean, it's something they've got to do so there's no reason why they should do it," Wotring said.

The policy also includes chewing tobacco, SNUS, cigars, and pipes but tobacco use will be permitted in personal vehicles.

Montgomery County considers partial smoking ban

Smokers would be banned from lighting up in common areas of at least 1,200 properties under a proposal being considered by the Montgomery County Council.

The regulation, which received a mixed reaction from a council committee Thursday, would prohibit smoking in hallways, laundry rooms, lobbies or other indoor common areas of multi-family homes, such as apartment complexes or townhouse developments. The ban would not apply to outdoor common areas, except playgrounds.

Councilman George L. Leventhal (D-At large) of Takoma Park, who authored the regulation, also seeks to expand the ban to smoking on all private playgrounds not just those that belong to multi-family homes. This would include playgrounds that are overseen by homeowners associations, but not a playground in the backyard of a single-family home.

“If you are exposed to secondhand smoke under these circumstances, it is not fair,” he said during the Rockville meeting.

Bruce Bereano, a lobbyist for the state’s tobacco wholesalers, said Leventhal’s regulation is another step toward an outright smoking ban.

“This is really a de facto ban on smoking in Montgomery County,” Bereano said.

Leventhal said he considered a complete ban on smoking in multi-family housing, but determined a majority of the nine-member council did not support such a policy.

The full council is expected to vote July 12 on the partial ban.
The council’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Leventhal chairs, voted Thursday to support the ban on smoking in indoor common areas. Leventhal supported expanding the ban to include all private playgrounds, but Councilman Craig L. Rice (D-Dist. 2) of Germantown did not. Councilwoman Nancy M. Navarro (D-Dist. 4) of Silver Spring was not at the meeting to break the tie.

Enforcement of the partial ban is expected to cost the county about $11,000 annually.

Rice said he takes his children to a playground near his Germantown home that would be subject to the proposed ban. And while he does not want them exposed to second-hand smoke, he questions whether his rights trump those of smokers who take their children to the playground.

Montgomery County already outlaws smoking in workplaces and restaurants. The county does not have the authority to ban smoking in parks overseen by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission.

Leventhal said his proposal closes a loophole that allows people to come into contact with dangerous secondhand smoke where they live and play.

Bereano questioned the lawmaker’s motives in proposing the ban.

“The anti-smoking, anti-tobacco people have long used children as the Trojan horse for their real agenda,” he said.

Cigarette makers sue over ad ban

The nation’s three biggest tobacco companies are taking aim at part of a new Worcester antismoking ordinance that would dramatically limit advertising of tobacco products.
The citywide ban would prohibit any signs visible from the street that entice buyers to purchase specific cigarettes brands like Marlboro or Camel, or tobacco products. Retailers would be allowed to advertise only that they sell cigarettes in general.

Philip Morris USA Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and Lorillard Tobacco Co., along with the trade group National Association of Tobacco Outlets Inc., last week filed suit against the city in federal court, arguing the ban violates freedom of speech rights by severely limiting how they advertise a legal product.

Historically, tobacco companies have prevailed in such cases. But a 2009 change in federal law strengthened communities’ regulatory muscle and could bolster Worcester’s case and provide a model for other communities, said Richard A. Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University. He said congressional findings in that law about how tobacco ads lead youths to smoke, and the ineffectiveness of current advertising restrictions, could influence the court.

“As Worcester goes, so goes the nation — maybe,’’ said Daynard, who is also president of the law school’s Public Health Advocacy Institute. “I think they could do it — in theory, I think they could.’’

The Worcester City Council approved the tobacco advertising ban last month, over concerns that such ads were contributing to a high incidence of smoking in the city, the second largest in Massachusetts. Nearly one-fourth, or 24 percent, of Worcester adults smoke, compared with a state average of 16 percent, according to city health statistics.

“The smoking rate in Worcester today is about where the state smoking rate was 20 years ago,’’ said Dale Magee, the city’s public health commissioner.

City officials said they expected a legal challenge, given issues involving the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Tobacco interests have succeeded in overturning similar bans. In 2001, for example, the US Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision that struck down as too broad a Massachusetts regulation prohibiting outdoor advertising of tobacco products within 1,000 feet of a school or playground.

But David M. Moore, Worcester’s city solicitor, said officials believe the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, approved by Congress in 2009, “rewrote the whole landscape’’ by giving local governments greater authority to regulate tobacco marketing based on “smoking and health ’’ concerns for the entire population, not just to protect children.

Courts have given communities greater latitude to regulate tobacco advertising aimed at children. “Congress in 2009 said you can worry about everybody,’’ Moore said.

But some First Amendment specialists question whether Worcester’s ban will survive, especially given previous court rulings.

“I think it’s dead on arrival [because] it’s not a regulation that’s aimed at false or deceptive advertising, it’s not a regulation that’s aimed at unlawful activities,’’ said Jonathan M. Albano, a partner at Bingham McCutchen LLP in Boston, who has also represented the Globe on First Amendment issues. “Unless and until we make tobacco products illegal, allowing bans on advertisements like this would mean you could apply it to other activities that are disfavored by some, but are not illegal.’’

Dan Jaffe, a spokesman for the Association of National Advertisers Inc., a trade group, agreed that Worcester’s ban, if found constitutional, would curtail companies’ freedom to advertise. “You cannot make a product legal and then say no one can hear about it,’’ Jaffe said.

If Worcester succeeds in implementing its law, it could have national implications on how companies and retailers market tobacco products, according to the National Association of Tobacco Outlets.

“If we allow one city to get away with interpreting the Constitution of the United States in the way they want to, it will potentially have a domino effect,’’ said Andrew Kerstein, the trade group president.

The ban was supposed to take effect tomorrow, but has been delayed while the court considers a request by tobacco companies and the National Association of Tobacco Outlets to halt the ban.

“What it boils down to for us is that this ordinance is not about youth tobacco prevention, rather it’s about prohibiting communication about a legal product to adults who choose to use tobacco,’’ said David Howard, a spokesman for R.J. Reynolds. “It’s not just a matter specific to Worcester.’’

NY State Gets Go-Ahead to Collect Taxes on Tribe Cigarette Sales

New York State can move forward with collecting taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian tribes to non-tribal members now that the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court has lifted a preliminary injunction.

In a decision handed down yesterday afternoon, the court denied a motion by the Seneca Nation of Indians to extend a ban on the collection of the taxes until a legal challenge against the state is decided.

In making its ruling, the legal panel upheld a lower-court ruling that said New York State followed state procedural requirements in adopting regulations spelling out how the taxes would be collected and how the undisputed tax exemption on Indian sales to tribal members would be preserved.

"This extends a long string of federal and state-level court rulings that New York is entitled to collect taxes when non-Indian customers buy cigarettes from tribal enterprises," said James Calvin, president of the New York Association of Convenience Stores, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief opposing the Seneca Nation’s legal challenge. "The law is the law, and it needs to be enforced fairly in the interest of small businesses, taxpayers, and public health. Let's get on with it."

With the state cigarette excise tax at $4.35 -- the highest in the country -- some estimates put New York's lost revenue from its failure to collect taxes from Indian reservations at $110 million a year.

However, the Seneca Nation of Indians is not giving up its fight and will ask for a review of the most recent court decision. In part, President Robert Odawi Porter said that "New York will never collect a cent of revenue from tobacco sales occurring in our territories, and revenue projections so indicating are foolishness."

"Instead, today marks the beginning of a new era in the Nation's tobacco trade and exercise of our sovereignty," he added. "Seneca people are now manufacturing cigarettes in our territories and our Nation's government will work with them to ensure that our tobacco economy is sustained and regulated."

He vowed to continue to block the state's efforts. "While the state may be able to embargo through taxation premium brands from entering our territory, it cannot tax the brands made in our territory or any of the Six Nations," Porter explained.

In 2010, the New York State Legislature passed a law requiring the collection of cigarette taxes on cigarette sales to non-tribal members. The law provided Indian tribes with several options for collecting those taxes, while ensuring that cigarette sales to qualified tribal members would remain tax free. The law was slated to go into effect Sept. 1, 2010. However, in August 2010, several Indian tribes sued the state in federal district court to bar enforcement of the new law. The tribes argued that the law violated their tribal sovereignty and caused them irreparable harm.

Men held over cigarette haul released

Three men arrested over the seizure of 7 million contraband cigarettes in west Dublin yesterday have been released.

The haul was uncovered at Baldonnell Business Park as it was being offloaded from a 12-metre container.

Three Irish men, one in his 40s and two in their 20s were arrested at the premises, were questioned last night before being released in the early hours of this morning. A Garda spokesman said today a file on the case was being prepared for the DPP.

The 'BusinessMan' brand cigarettes had a potential a retail value of €2.9m and could have caused a loss of €2.3 million to the Exchequer if sold on the black market.

They arrived into Belfast Port on Monday from Malaysia and were declared to customs as “wooden flooring” before being transported to Dublin.

The Revenue Customs Service, HMRC Customs Northern Ireland, the PSNI and Garda were among the bodies involved in the joint operation. Some 62 million cigarettes with a retail value of €26m have been seized by Customs officers so far this year.

Bethel-based coalition to offer tobacco education programs

The Housatonic Valley Coalition Against Substance Abuse on Stony Hill Road will provide tobacco prevention programs this summer in its 22 area towns.
The Connecticut Prevention Network, the state's network of 13 Regional Action Councils for substance abuse prevention and wellness, received the Department of Public Health's Innovative Tobacco Use Prevention Programs for Youth in Connecticut Grant.

The grant will give programs throughout the state a total $168,774 for their activity-based tobacco education curriculums for youth ages 5 to 14.
The Housatonic coalition will implement the statewide tobacco education program in five one-hour sessions in various settings, including summer camps, positive youth development programs, boys and girls clubs and traditional classroom locations.

Tobacco-Maker Lorillard Among Companies Whose Lobby Pays Off for Investors

Tobacco-maker Lorillard Inc. (LO), facing the prospect that the government might ban its top product, made a bet on Washington lobbying that paid off for shareholders.
The Greensboro, North-Carolina-based company spent $900,000 in its efforts to sway regulators and lawmakers. When an advisory panel to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in March stopped short of recommending an outright ban on menthol cigarettes, which make up 90 percent Lorillard’s sales, the stock price surged.

The benefit to the maker of Newport cigarettes will likely last a couple more years, according to Strategas Research Partners. The New York-based institutional broker dealer says that shares of companies that spend on lobbying rise more than the broader market.
The 50 companies with the most intense lobbying efforts have outperformed the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index an average 12.4 percent each year since 2002, according to Strategas. Daniel Clifton, the company’s head of policy research, said the company measures lobbying intensity by comparing what the company spends to its size. He declined to give the exact formula because Strategas has a proprietary lobbying index.
“There’s a reason that corporations invest in lobbying Congress: They see a return, and it’s good for their bottom line,” says Mary Boyle, vice president of communications at Common Cause, a Washington-based advocacy group that tracks money in politics.
Playing Offense
Legislation and regulation play a huge role in the success of a company, Clifton says. Corporations use lobbying to play offense and try to secure changes in laws that will help them, and defense, to prevent damage from new proposals.
Lorillard is trying to prevent the FDA from banning menthol flavoring in cigarettes. The company’s Newport brand of menthols generated 90 percent of its revenue last year. Lorillard paid the lobbying firm Dickstein Shapiro $900,000 in this year’s first quarter, about half of what it spent on lobbying in all of 2010, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
That put it at the top of the Strategas lobbying index for the quarter, which ended March 31. The investment firm includes the 50 companies with the most intense lobbying and updates the list each quarter when new lobbying disclosures are released. At the end of each year, the list is frozen and that index remains in place for two more years. Strategas right now has indexes for 2009, 2010 and 2011.

Tobacco Forges an Electronic Transformation

While electronic cigarettes show promise as a growing tobacco subcategory, two issues are threatening its widespread growth.

One is the looming threat of government regulation, which most agree is inevitable, but at least a year or two away. The other involves ongoing research intent on poking holes in e-cigs’ claim that they are a safer alternative to conventional cigarettes.

Cigarettes, Not Devices
Health questions aside, electronic cigarettes are an emerging cigarette alternative for millions of Americans. As such, lawmakers are attempting to define precisely what e-cigarettes are and are not, so they can begin to pile on regulations. A uniform standard has yet to be applied. Some states consider e-cigarettes to be tobacco products while others don’t.

For example, some states tax electronic cigarettes at the other tobacco products (OTP) tax rate, while others have an ad valorem tax, which is a percentage of the wholesale price. So if, on electronic cigarettes, a kit costs $50 and a state’s OTP tax rate is 20%, then the tax is $10.

“I think the biggest news is that the FDA indicated that it is going to be treating electronic or alternative cigarettes as cigarettes rather than delivery devices,” said Lyle Beckwith, senior vice president of government relations for NACS. “The concern was that they going to regulate them as drug-delivery devices.”

In April, FDA announced it would not appeal the recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Sottera Inc. vs. FDA, stating that e-cigarettes and other products are not drugs/devices unless they are marketed for therapeutic purposes, but that products “made or derived from tobacco” can be regulated as “tobacco products” under the FD&C Act.

FDA officials noted they are “aware that certain products made or derived from tobacco, such as electronic cigarettes, are not currently subject to pre-market review requirements of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. FDA is developing a strategy to regulate this emerging class of devices as tobacco products under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.”

Beckwith called FDA’s position a responsible one to take. “A lot of questions remain, though. For instance, are they going to be taxed like cigarettes? Are they going to require warning labels like cigarettes? There is a lot of uncertainty, things we just don’t know yet,” he said.

Clininc offering tobacco cessation programs

The Little Clinic has begun offering the SmartPath Tobacco Cessation Program at five of its Memphis area Kroger locations.

The clinic is trying to help some of America’s 45 million smokers kick the habit by making the SmartPath Tobacco Cessation Program available seven days a week with no appointment needed.

“Counseling and medication have been shown to increase the chance that a person who tries to quit will succeed,” said Dr. Kenneth Patric, chief medical officer for The Little Clinic. “The Little Clinic recognizes that in order to have a solid foundation for health, tobacco user need motivation and assistance.”

The SmartPath® Tobacco Cessation Program offers a two-visit program. In the first visit the patient’s health and nicotine dependence are evaluated and the following visit focuses on tips to stay tobacco-free. The two-visit program is offered for $29 and a $29 charge for each additional coaching session.

Tobacco shop, bath salts robbery arrest in Bloomington

Local police teamed up with the U.S. Marshal’s Fugitive Task Force to arrest 24-year-old John A. Harness. He was arrested Friday in Normal on a warrant charging him with armed robbery. Police say Harness is accused of robbing Global Tobacco at gunpoint, taking money and bath salts. State officials have been investigating the so-called bath salts, which can be abused and snorted to get high.

Money to curb smoking is cut from state budget

Money aimed at preventing tobacco use in Ohio will run out in a year unless the state reverses course on planned budget cuts.

Gov. John Kasich's budget has proposed cutting tobacco-use prevention funds to $1million in fiscal year 2012 and wiping out the fund for the fiscal year after that.

But the Ohio Department of Health says it needs $1million per year just to enforce the state smoking ban and $2 million to keep the quit-line program going.

Director Theodore Wymyslo, who was appointed by Kasich in January, testified before a Senate committee this month that the cuts also will affect how the statewide smoking ban is enforced.
"Without funds for this program, we will no longer be able to inspect bars and restaurants to ensure the smoking ban enacted by the voters of Ohio is implemented," Wymyslo said.

Anti-smoking advocates agree that the cuts are excessive.

"The enforcement dollars are crucial," said Marianne Farmer, policy director for the East Central Division of the American Cancer Society.

"Even though the majority of businesses in Ohio comply with the law, for the few business that don't, they will even have less of an incentive if they know there isn't going to be enforcement."

The agency held a news conference at the Statehouse yesterday to protest the cuts.

"Tobacco is the No. 1 cause of preventable death in our state," said Shelly Kiser, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association of Ohio. "We've already seen the smoking rate stall after budget cuts this year."

From 2002 to 2008, the Ohio Tobacco Foundation orchestrated state prevention efforts with a $300 million endowment from a $10.1billion lawsuit settlement with tobacco companies. But in recent years, the settlement money was diverted to fill budget holes.

Wymyslo said that going forward, programs to prevent tobacco use should be funded by the $922 million in tobacco taxes Ohio collects each year. That money currently goes to the state's general-revenue fund.

Approximately 9,300 cases of lung cancer are diagnosed in Ohio every year, and about 7,400 people die of the disease statewide, according to the American Cancer Society.

Kiser said the smoking ban, which was enacted in May 2007, has likely helped curb cigarette use. She said the proposed cuts could hurt enforcement efforts.

Most enforcement is done by local health departments. But a recent Dayton Daily News analysis found that, although violators face $2.2million in fines, $1.5million has yet to be collected.

Franklin County Health Commissioner Susan Tilgner said the state currently reimburses local health departments $125 per enforcement investigation, up to $5,600 each year. Anything beyond that is paid for with fines.

Since enforcement began, Franklin County has collected nearly $22,000 in fines. An additional $19,000 has not been collected.

Education and cessation programs also could be cut, Farmer said.

"If this budget passes, Ohio will be the only state in the nation that doesn't have a quit line," Farmer said.

The quit line arranges nicotine patches and five sessions with a specialist. The program serves 20,000 Ohioans a year and costs $215 per client.

Wymyslo said the program saves employers $2,600 per employee in otherwise lost productivity.

"Clearly, this is an economic benefit to Ohio employers," he said during his testimony.

The Ohio Department of Health currently receives $1.3 million annually from the national Centers for Disease Control for tobacco-use prevention and is exploring other funding options, said spokeswoman Jen House.

Children of tobacco farmers get scholarship grants

National Tobacco Administration (NTA) manager Esmeralda G. Valera announced that the office has allocated 11 slots of scholarship grants to children of tobacco farmers in the province for school year 2011-2012.
Since the announcement came a bit late, Valera instructed interested applicants who are qualified to avail of the said scholarship program to act fast and coordinate with their respective agricultural technicians assigned in their municipality as well as in the Abra State Institute of Science and Technology (ASIST), the only agricultural college in the province.

At least eight slots for four-year courses or bachelor’s degrees and three vocational courses are available for this year.
The NTA scholarship grant is given to poor but deserving student-children of registered tobacco farmers in Abra, which means that the applicant must have a general minimum weighted passing average and must be able to finish the course he is going to enroll within the prescribed curriculum year.

The primary criterion for granting the scholarship program is the willingness of the student-applicant to take up agriculture-related courses.
Other qualifications for the scholarship program are: the applicant must have graduated in high school and must be an incoming first year college student this current school year.

The NTA scholar is given P3,000 for tuition fees per semester. A scholarship contract must be signed between the NTA and the scholar.
Meanwhile, Valera reminded the tobacco farmers of their unpaid amortizations of their loans for the tobacco production. Otherwise, they will not be able to avail of the loan for their rice production this coming cropping season.

MMDA warns Metro Manilans against smoking in public places

People caught smoking in public places will not be penalized yet, but they will definitely be given warning.
This was according to Metropolitan Manila Development Authority spokesperson Tina Velasco during an interview earlier today in government media’s tv/radio program “Talking Points.”
The MMDA recently announced that starting May 30, they will be arresting those who are smoking in public places. This is in strict implementation of the anti-smoking law, which is under the provisions of Republic Act 9211 or the Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003.
The full enforcement of the law had been moved to July 1 as MMDA chairman Francis Tolentino wants an intensified information campaign period for the whole month of June regarding RA 9211 as part of the government’s effort to make the public aware of the existence of the said law.
Velasco said that those smokers who will be caught between May 30 to June 30 will just be given warnings.
The MMDA, together with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), and the 17 local government units in NCR are tasked to apprehend no-smoking transgressors.
Under R.A 9211, smoking tobacco is prohibited in public places such as: centers of children and youth activity such as schools, playgrounds, recreational facilities and youth hostels; elevators and stairwells; locations with fire hazards such as gas stations; hospitals and health centers, medical and dental facilities; public conveyances and public facilities such as airports, trains and bus stations except those with separate smoking areas; and, food and beverages preparation areas.
“Public conveyances” are defined as modes of transport servicing the general population such as, but not limited to, “elevators, airplanes, buses, taxicabs, ships, jeepneys, light rail transits, tricycles, and similar vehicles.”
According to the MMDA statement, violators will be fined P500 on first offense while those who cannot afford to pay the fine are obliged to render eight hours of community service. Those arrested for the second time will be made to pay a P1,000 fine and those arrested for the third and subsequent times will be made to pay a P5,000 fine.
The announcement of the anti-smoking law is in observance of 100 percent Smoke-Free Environment campaign and the World No Tobacco Day celebration on June 1, 2011.
The enforcement of the said law is aimed at achieving a smoke-free metropolis by 2012.
Velasco added that the anti-smoking law will be an endeavor of the MMDA, the Department of Health, the 17 local government units in Metro Manila, the NGOs, and the UP College of Law. They will strongly undertake, with the cooperation of the public, the law in order to achieve a smoke-free NCR

Restaurant Bans Outdoor Smoking

"I kind of like it. I think it's a lot healthier for people that don't smoke," said Latsha.

There is no smoking allowed inside the restaurant and now, outside on the picnic tables you won't be able to smoke there either. The owner said he wanted a healthier environment for his customers. He surveyed them and most agreed with the no smoking policy.

"It's a very family-oriented atmosphere out here. We pride ourselves on that. Times have changed and we figure the amount of time you spend dinning here, it's really not that much of an inconvenience," said Matthew Rabb of The Fence Restaurant.

Each picnic table is clearly marked with the no smoking policy, but if you order and eat in your car you can still smoke in there.

Some people who were asked said they think the new outside smoking policy is a positive thing.

"Good. Keep the butts off the grass," said Preston Pardoe of Hughesville.

"I think it's a good idea because even out here the wind blows it to the next table when there is smoking," agreed Mary Pardoe.

Not everyone likes the change.

"Not happy. That's taking away one of my rights. Yeah, we won't be eating here anymore. I enjoy the food but I won't be eating here anymore," said Gina McMichael of Richfield.

Son Smoking in Bed Starts Fire

An elderly mother says her son was smoking in bed when he accidentally set their home on fire.
It happened around midnight Wednesday on King at Barnston.
Firefighters with the Houston Fire Department were called to the home and found heavy flames shooting from the one-story structure. They made a fast attack and got the blaze under control before.
According to the mother, she was inside when she first noticed all the smoke. Her son tried to put water on the fire, which made the smoke even worse.
Both the son and his elderly mother made it out safely.
Only one bedroom and part of the attic were damaged in the fire, but the mother said she has no insurance, and paying for repairs would be an issue.

Hookah Smoking: Newest Front In

Hookah bars are popping up nationwide near college campuses and urban dining, shopping and entertainment enclaves like spring dandelions. They are regarded by some as a novel and chic way to socialize and embrace multiculturalism.

A May 31, 2011 article in the New York Times “Putting a Crimp in the Hookah” highlights the growing popularity of this centuries-old tradition and raising health concerns posed by smoking the aromatic blend of tobacco, molasses and fruit known as shisha.

The establ ishments also called shisha bars or dens invite patrons to share the flavored tobacco from a communal hookah (water pipe) or nargile which is placed on each table.

According to the Times article, there is a common belief among smokers that hookah smoke is less dangerous to health than cigarettes, because it “is filtered through water, so you get fewer solid particles.”

But in fact, hookahs are far from safe because a typical hookah session can last up to an hour, with smokers typically taking long, deep breaths, the smoke inhaled can equal 100 cigarettes or more, according to a 2005 study by the World Health Organization.

That study also found that the water in hookahs filters out less than 5 percent of the nicotine. Moreover, hookah smoke contains tar, heavy metals, toxic vapors and other cancer-causing chemicals. An additional hazard: the tobacco in the hookahs is heated with charcoal, leading to dangerously high levels of carbon monoxide, even for people who spend time in hookah bars without actually smoking, according to a recent University of Florida study.

Several studies have linked hookah use to many of the same diseases associated with cigarette smoking, like lung, oral and bladder cancer, as well as clogged arteries, heart disease and adverse effects during pregnancy.

And now, legislators, college administrators, local governments and health advocates are taking action against what many of them call the newest front on the ever-shifting war on tobacco.

In California, New York, Connecticut and Oregon, state lawmakers have introduced bills that would ban or limit indoor hookah bars. Boston and Maine have already ended exemptions in their indoor-smoking laws that had allowed hookah bars to thrive.

Senate rejects bill to ban smoking in bars

The state Senate rejected legislation Wednesday that would have outlawed smoking in Louisiana bars, handing a victory to bar and gambling interests that lobbied against the ban.
The 22-15 rejection of Senate Bill 133 by Sen. Rob Marionneaux Jr., D-Livonia, marks at least the third time that lawmakers have refused to expand the state's 2006 law that banned smoking in restaurants and other indoor public spaces.
Supporters said the bill is needed to protect the health of bartenders, waitresses and others who work in smoke-filled environments, citing figures that show hundreds of deaths in Louisiana each year can be attributed to secondhand smoke.
"It fundamentally comes down to who are we interested in protecting," Sen. Karen Carter Peterson, D-New Orleans, said. "I want to stand on the side of people and their health."
As the bill left the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, it would have banned smoking in all bars, but would have continued to allow the practice in casinos. But Marionneaux offered a floor amendment that called for a total ban, including Indian and non-Indian casinos.
That amendment fell on a 21-15 vote.
But opponents said the bill would hit the state in the pocketbook by driving smokers - and the tax revenue they bring in - to other states.
"Those people who like to smoke ... are going to go to the people who will receive them and cater to their wants," said Sen. Dan "Blade" Morrish, R-Jennings, who said the ban could have a negative impact on riverboat casinos in Lake Charles.

St. Charles County Council votes to put smoking ban on ballot

Before a packed audience Tuesday night, the St. Charles County Council voted 4-2 to send a proposed smoking ban to voters in the Nov. 6, 2012, election.
The bill, which would outlaw smoking in most public places in the county, including municipalities, now goes to County Executive Steve Ehlmann, who has 10 days to sign or veto it.
County spokesman John Sonderegger said Ehlmann plans to take all 10 of those days to make his decision. If Ehlmann vetoes the bill, a super majority — five of the council's seven members — would be needed to override the veto.
Bill sponsors Joe Cronin, R-District 1, Nancy Matheny, R-District 3, John White, R-District 7, and Terry Hollander, R-District 5, all voted for the bill. Joe Brazil, R-District 2, and Jerry Daugherty, D-District 6, voted against. Paul Wynn, R-District 4, was absent.
The bill originally called for putting the ban on the August 2012 ballot, but was amended to set the election in November 2012, when voter turnout is expected to be greater, especially for the presidential election.
"My objective was to let the people of this county decide this issue, and I reached that objective tonight," Cronin said after the meeting.
Local bar and restaurant owners spoke passionately to the council about their fears if such a bill would become law. Some said outside the council chambers that if their businesses were not exempt from the smoking ban, they might have to close their doors.
Jake Alcorn, who has owned Eddie's Pub on Fifth Street in St. Charles, for the past two years, said at least 75 percent of his customers are smokers. Alcorn said he counted 12 of the 15 people in his bar smoking before he came to the meeting.
"It's going to hurt business," Alcorn said. "I was told the other night, 'Just sell another drink.' But I'm still liable for my customers. People that do smoke want a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other. That's how they do it. If they can't smoke, they're going to go home. I don't serve food. I serve alcohol. Most people that go out in the real world and drink alcohol also smoke."
The proposed ban would include aquariums, galleries, libraries, museums, banks, laundromats, professional offices, retail service establishments, bars, bingo facilities, child care and adult day care facilities, convention facilities, public and private educational facilities, elevators, health care facilities, 80 percent of hotel and motel rooms, common areas in apartment buildings, condominiums, trailer parks, retirement facilities, nursing homes and other multiple-unit residential facilities, polling places, public transportation vehicles, restaurants and food establishments, common-use restrooms, lobbies, reception areas and hallways, retail stores, places of public meetings, malls, sports arenas and theaters, places of employment, enclosed residential facilities and some outdoor areas.
One of the biggest complaints among opponents of the ban is that the bill would exempt Ameristar Casino in St. Charles. Other exemptions include private residences, 20 percent of hotel and motel rooms, private clubs without employees and cigar bars.
Standing outside the County Executive Building before Tuesday's meeting was Bill Hannegan, who was helping hold a large sign that had a red circle with a line through the words "Casino Exemption." Hannegan lives in St. Louis but has joined the bill's opponents in the county because of the St. Louis City Smoke-Free Air Act of 2009.
"I feel very sorry for the bar owners in St. Charles County," Hannegan said. "And any law that's passed in St. Charles County is going to have an impact. We hope to eventually defeat the smoking ban in St. Louis city and St. Louis County. That becomes more difficult if St. Charles County loses its freedom. Particularly for adult establishments like bars and casinos."
According to the St. Charles County bill, Ameristar would lose its exemption when gambling facilities in St. Louis, St. Louis County, Jefferson County and the Illinois counties of Madison and St. Clair lose their exemptions. St. Louis' ordinance will expire in 2016, but St. Louis County does not have a sunset clause.
"(The County Council) is worried that if the casino would close, they'd lose 1,600 jobs," said Bill Meinhold, who resides south of St. Charles. "They're not worried about 1,600 business people losing one employee."
White owns a business in central Illinois. He said business owners he spoke with there told him a smoking ban put in place two years ago hasn't affected their bottom lines.