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.

Philip Morris takes Uruguay to international court because of tobacco-ban policy

According to the claim, Uruguay’s policies on tobacco control are damaging the company’s performance in the small the South American country.
Former Uruguayan President Tabare Vazquez, an oncologist, banned smoking in public buildings four years ago. Tobacco advertising is also banned and cigarettes' packets must carry large health warnings.
The rules, which also prevent the sale of products branded as “light,” put Uruguay at the vanguard of global anti-smoking laws.
Also at the vanguard of its business is Philip Morris. It is the first time that a tobacco company demands a State on an international forum.
At a press conference in the beginning of May, the Uruguayan Government reaffirmed the right to defend the public health of its citizens. This is the line the defence will follow according to the US lawyer Paul Reichler, who will assume the defence of the country in the litigation.
According to Reichler, the defence questions the agreement of protection of investments that the tobacco company says the country has violated based on an article that authorizes the government not to allow economic activities “that damage the public health”.
“The treaty establishes that by sovereignty Uruguay has the right to prohibit unhealthy activities (...). With its anti tobacco laws the country does not attack the investments of Philip Morris, it only imposes limits to an activity that is to promote and to commercialize harmful products ”, emphasized Reichler.