Friday, September 24, 2004

Smoking Breaks Hurt Corporate Profits

----- Original Message -----
From: Garnet Dawn
To: ;
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 1:45 PM
Subject: Smoking Breaks Hurrt Corporate Profits


I completely agree with "kb76120"'s Message #383, that the anti-smoking campaigns in the work place are really about profit margins, not "health".

He wrote on IL Smokers Group:

"....When you could smoke at
your desk, time out for a lengthy drag cost a company a millifraction
of a penny. When they got the propaganda machine going full tilt,
and enabled quit smoking programs to flourish (I'm guessing), they
realized how expensive it was having employees going outside to
smoke. And that was before 120s even became fashionable. So its not
civil prejudices against smokers, its that smoke breaks are just too
expensive in labor. And they have to justify it by screaming health
risks to the point of overkill."

In my opinion, the entire anti-smoking movement got it's first real break in the early '70's during our country's phony emergency energy shortage. How many of you remember when people waited in lines that backed up forever to fill up their cars' gas tanks, had to buy gasoline on alternate days and locking gas caps?

Not only was gasoline supposed to be in short supply, so was electricity. In the name of energy conservation, developers and construction companies began building "sealed" buildings. It was a wonderful for the builders, property owners, the property holding companies and management corporations. Buildings could be constructed at a great cost reduction with no working windows for ventilation. Enter the insurance companies who offered large buildings reduced insurance premiums if they could reduce fire hazards. Smoking in buildings is a fire hazard, thus non-smoking buildings became the new trend. At that point, it was all about dollars and cents.

Soon, smokers began to have to use smoking rooms and go outside for a cigarette. They were taking breaks that they never would have taken when allowed to smoke at their desks. Of course, the non-smokers then wanted their breaks too. Breaks are non-productive, therefore "bad" for the corporate bottom line.

Once smoke in the office place and public buildings was eliminated, another financial benefit presented itself. Now these sealed buildings didn't require as much energy for good ventilation as they did when smoke floated in the air tattling on poor ventilation systems. Enter current day. Now we have "sick" building syndrome, and the flue or one cold can be passed around an entire office. The same applies to commercial airlines. Every one seems to accept it.

It appears to me that, with smoking eliminated, stuffy environments and illness have become a way of life to us. What a great improvement on our way of life. Now, we can ruin our lungs without any smoke being present to "supposedly" harm our health.

Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. -
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - Respect Freedom of Choice! is looking for people who have seen their wallet take a hit as the price of cigarettes has climbed.

----- Original Message -----
From: Garnet Dawn
To: The Smoker's Club, Inc. ; ;
Sent: Saturday, September 18, 2004 9:39 PM
Subject: is looking for people who have seen their wallet take a hit as the price of cigarettes has climbed.


I live in northern Illinois and am furious about recent antismoking health propaganda and antismoking policies. The anti-smokers are obsessed and will never be satisfied till they control every waking moment of our lives. I never objected to non-smoking public buildings, avoided non-smoking restaurants and accepted smoking areas. I am a considerate smoker and have always picked up any cigarette butts I created as ashtrays became more and more scarce. The final straw was last year, when we went on a once-in-a-lifetime vacation for two weeks in Orlando, FL. I couldn't believe that we couldn't find a restaurant that allowed smoking. Due to the Florida smoking ban, we ate at the Disney parks, snuck cigarettes in the parks when we could and refused to patronize any restaurants during our entire stay. Several times we ate in our room--too bad for the restaurants, bars and Florida's economy.

I really appreciate your interest and the opportunity to respond to your questions. Smokers have been completely muzzled and have remained unrepresented by the great majority of the press and other media. I have written many responses and letters to the media and my local, state and federal representatives. Only a very small percentage of the citizens defending smokers' rights are ever published. I have in no way been subsidized for my efforts. I have also signed numerous petitions to fight anti-smoking legislation. I am trying to defend my civil rights, as are most proactive smokers.

I paid about $6.00 per carton when I was a teenager. Now, even with my discounted prices, they cost me over $30.00 per carton--and I wonder why I have trouble keeping up with my credit cards!! In regard to your question as to the maximum I will pay for cigarettes, I will only say that I will not pay Illinois prices. I have another source. Should I loose that source, I will roll my own cigarettes or grow my own tobacco--whatever it takes... I am far from alone in my sentiments. The recent Illinois tax increase will serve no purpose, except to create a mass disrespect for the law. I still smoke my favorite brand, Pall Mall Gold 100's. It is a brand that I can't even find in stores any more. The only brands I see offered are Marlboros, Camels and generics. I can't even purchase flints for my Zippo lighter in a store without needing an employee to open a locked case for me.

I smoke about two packs a day, although my ashtrays tend to burn away quite a few. I have no intention of quitting. I like smoking. I have since I began smoking at sixteen. Taxes/prices will never cause the large core of real smokers to stop smoking. In some very recent statistics I have read that about 50% of smokers have tried to quit at least once. Has it ever occurred to all the "for your own good" health officials that at least 50% of smokers have no intention of ever quitting? The constant pressures being artificially created to discourage smokers only intensifies our resolve. I will not spend a single penny in non-smoking establishments. That is MY choice.

Recent, well-funded efforts by massive health organizations toward smoking bans and other types of anti-smoking legislation is a frightening prophesy of our future. No amount of distortion and half truths, regarding the harms of cigarette smoke, is taboo to the anti-smokers. The current efforts to denormalize smokers smacks of "1984". We are the new minority. Only a very small percentage (about 2%) of the population are anti-smoking crusaders. History has proven that prohibitionists' motives are not altruistic. The majority of people are just following along, and are not questioning the "junk science" smoking studies with which we are constantly inundated.

I am active on the internet with other smokers all around the world. We are all "grassroots". I hope you can take a few minutes to review our Smokers Club Newsletter (published weekly) at This site contains current smoking news and hyperlinks to smoking related information for each state and much, much more. Articles and letters are submitted from all over the world and our letter is published weekly. I also own the IL Smokers Group at

I hope you will also investigate two other very interresting smoking sites:

The first one is Dave Hitt's It lists the "Businesses Harmed By Smoking Bans", and is taken from actual business owners--not computer generated statistics. The other is Michael J. McFadden's site (Michael is the author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains") at

Please do contact me if you would like to follow-up. Good luck.


Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, IL

Monday, September 13, 2004

From: "Garnet Dawn"
Subject: Fw: Suggested follow-up story to "Backers call smoking bans along beaches healthy move"

To: ; ;
Sent: Sunday, September 12, 2004 7:32 PM
Subject: Suggested follow-up story to "Backers call smoking bans along beaches healthy move"

Letter to The San Diego Union-Tribune

Attention: News Tips and Story Ideas
Ben Fuchs, Author
Ron James, Content Manager

RE: Global Marine Litter Information Gateway

Referencing your story (copied below) "Backers call smoking bans along beaches healthy move" by Ben Fuchs on 09/12/04, I believe it would make an excellent story for you to supply equal coverage to the many other threats to humans, marine life and beaches in California and around the world. See "Global Marine Litter Information Gateway" below, showing some of the horrors inflicted on marine life (pictures included) by careless littering.

If smoking is to be banned on beaches, then it is also reasonable to ban any food/beverage items that can produce litter. Pieces of metal, rope, Styrofoam and plastic, etc. are far more harmful to the environment, marine life and people than cigarette butts. Demanding the same litter requirements for all individuals using beach facilities seems only reasonable. Persecuting a minority of smokers while allowing the rest of the population to litter is irrational. (Incidentally, how many years had it been since anyone cleaned cigarette butt litter from the referenced beach?)

Applying the same fines to all those guilty of bringing disposable items to the beach (cigarettes or otherwise) would be a far more productive ordinance. Wouldn't that be a welcome responsibility for the police department--requiring them to enforce an anti-smoking/drinking/eating ordinance against every person visiting San Diego beaches! Either that, or just ban the public from all beaches totally!!

I am a smoker. I lived in southern California for several years, although I am from the Midwest. I would never even consider visiting any part of California now, on vacation, or for any other purpose. I still do believe Californians should address beach litter issues in a much broader sense. Litter is a serious problem, but simply banning smokers will not eliminate the problem. The majority of smokers are considerate people. Has no one ever considered the benefits of supplying ashtrays?

Please take a few moments to study the following website from the Global Marine Litter Information Gateway. If environmental issues are of concern, everyone should realize the serious harm being done by our general population. This would make an excellent story/study for your paper.

Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, IL

The Following website has been copied from The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter, August 20, 2004, Issue # 290


Global Marine Litter Information Gateway:

Beach-goers, campers etc.: All beaches and camping grounds should be sufficiently equipped with waste bins to cater for the needs of visitors using these locations. However, people should preferably always take home their own trash and make sure that it is properly sorted and disposed of for maximum recycling. If you are capable of carrying the full containers and bottles with you to the beach, surely you can carry them with you home when they are empty.

Marine litter (debris) is an environmental, economic, health and aesthetic problem around the world because ... travels widely with currents and winds. It travels around sea areas and between oceans. It is found not only in densely populated regions but also in very remote places away from any obvious sources. It can also literally blow from the sea inland.

... it is long-lived and active for decades, directly and indirectly. It consists to a very great extent of plastics, and of metal and glass — materials that do not break down easily or quickly. Plastic litter is a source of toxic substances (particularly persistent organic substances).

... it is a visible threat to wildlife, but also an invisible one. It is found in horrendous quantities on the seabed, where it kills and injures out of our sight. "Ghost fishing" by discarded or lost fishing nets is just one of many examples.

... it is a vicious killer of marine mammals, seabirds and many other life forms in the marine and coastal environment. Marine litter injures and causes physical pain and suffering to a wide range of animals, from the largest to the smallest of creatures.

... it also threatens marine and coastal biological diversity by destroying coastal "nurseries", where new life would otherwise emerge. Litter can also transport invasive species between sea areas.

Last update:
4 August 2004
Marine litter (marine debris) is not just some garbage on the beach or in the water that you can easily clean up and be rid of. Marine litter is a serious problem in the marine and coastal environment, worldwide, and it keeps getting worse.
Marine litter travels over long distances with ocean currents and winds. It is found almost universally in the marine and coastal environments (oceans and seas, salt marshes, estuaries, beaches) — not only in densely populated regions but also in remote places far away from any obvious sources.
Marine litter kills, injures and causes pain and suffering. It is a vicious killer of marine mammals, seabirds and many other life forms, from the largest to the smallest of creatures. It is a visible threat to wildlife, but also an invisible one. Ghost fishing by discarded or lost fishing nets is just one of many examples.

Marine litter also threatens marine and coastal biological diversity by destroying coastal "nurseries", where new life would otherwise emerge. Plastic litter can be a source of persistent toxic substances. And pieces of litter can transport invasive species between seas.

Most of the marine litter persists for decades, Some of this long-lived litter forms traps that kill and harm merciless, over and over again. It consists to a very great extent of plastics (and of metal and glass) — materials that do not break down easily or quickly.

Medical and sanitary waste constitutes a health hazard and can seriously injure people. Every year, marine litter entails great economic costs and losses to people and communities around the world. It spoils, fouls and destroys the beauty of the sea and the coastal zone. This degradation of waters and shores makes us avoid them, if we have a choice.
Backers call smoking bans along beaches healthy move

By Ben Fuchs
September 12, 2004

Solana Beach was the first city in California to ban beach smoking.

August 2002. Ten local teenagers drag themselves out of bed on a balmy Saturday morning and drowsily make their way to Moonlight Beach in Encinitas.

After exchanging greetings, they grab garbage pickers and fluorescent-orange bags, kick off their sandals and start combing a half-mile stretch of sand for trash.

The young volunteers return in less than an hour, faces painted with shock. They had collected roughly 6,000 cigarette butts that quickly.

The teens were there to clean up the beach. They had no clue their work would spark a movement that has spread to a dozen California communities and captured the attention of lawmakers in Sacramento.

About two years later, Encinitas' southern neighbor, Solana Beach, has become the torchbearer in a rapidly spreading effort across the state to rid beaches of butts.

Last November, Solana Beach became the first community in California to ban smoking on an ocean beach. Since then, eight other cities and one county in the state have outlawed smoking on their beaches, and several more communities are working on similar ordinances.

A bill to ban smoking on all 64 state-run beaches in California failed by two votes Aug. 26 in the state Senate, but supporters expect to see a like measure passed in the next few years.

This is not the first time Solana Beach has led a movement to restrict smoking. It was the first community in the state to ban lighting up in restaurants in 1992, three years before a similar statewide law took effect.

For many in this city of 13,000, the beach smoking ban was a logical step toward maintaining their quality of life.

"We've seen a proliferation of cigarette butts," said Mayor Joe Kellejian. "Our beaches were virtually used as an ashtray."

Motivated by mess
Diana Lavery was one of the volunteers, all members of the Youth Tobacco Prevention Corps of the San Dieguito Alliance for Drug Free Youth, who scoured Moonlight Beach two years ago. Now 19, she said that day's discovery was the last straw.
"It was kind of discouraging," she said.

After the surprise of their find melted away, Lavery and her cohorts went to work, more motivated than ever. They videotaped anti-smoking testimonials from local residents, searched the Internet for statistics on smoking's hazards, practiced speeches and perfected presentations.

In October 2002, Lavery and two other teens stood in front of the Solana Beach City Council to lay out their reasons for a smoking ban on the city's 1.7 miles of coastline. The council eventually agreed with them and voted unanimously last October for a ban. Smoking on city beaches and at city parks became illegal a month later.

Kellejian said the teens' presentation brought a major nuisance and health hazard into focus and played a large role in the council's historic vote.

He said it would be blatantly hypocritical to allow smoking on the city's beaches while continuing to promote Solana Beach as a safe place to live and visit. The U.S. surgeon general has listed smoking as the leading cause of preventable deaths in the nation.

Some smokers are unhappy with the legislation. Burbank resident Ray Domkus, president of FORCES California, a smokers' rights group claiming 6,000 to 7,000 members statewide, said smoking bans have ruined a favorite summer pastime: relaxing at the beach, puffing on a Marlboro.

"Basically what they have done is stolen the beaches from me and people like me," he said.

Supporters of such bans say cigarette butts account for roughly 40 percent of all litter found on California beaches. Eben Schwartz, statewide outreach director for the Coastal Commission, said volunteers throughout California reported finding about 315,000 butts during last year's Coastal Cleanup Day and the total was probably 10 times that amount.

"Folks get so sick of picking up cigarette butts that they stop keeping track," Schwartz said.

The butts pose "a disgusting health hazard" since they can be ingested by small children and marine life, he said. And there is no way to tell how long the filters take to break down because the plastic material used in them "has only been around for 50 years, and we've never seen it completely biodegrade."

During storms and high tides, Schwartz said, filters often wash out to sea, where fish and marine mammals may mistake them for a meal. He said butts also leach hundreds of toxic chemicals into the sand and ocean, posing a threat to marine life. And, he added, the chemicals can wind up in fish and shellfish that are later consumed by humans, which he called a "terrifying" prospect.

While the full environmental implications of Solana Beach's ban may not be known for years, supporters cite the case of Honolulu's Hanauma Bay Nature Preserve, where officials enacted a smoking ban in 1993 to head off rampant littering. Eleven years later, the preserve's picturesque, crescent-shaped beach looks cleaner despite having close to a million visitors annually, preserve manager Alan Hong said.

Several East Coast cities also have beach smoking bans, but all include designated areas where lighting up is allowed.

Ban supporters say that aside from the direct health risks, which include exposure to second-hand smoke, puffing away on beaches can lead kids in the wrong direction.

"Smoking in family environments shouldn't be allowed because children then believe that tobacco is harmless and fun," said Candice Porter, program director for the Youth Tobacco Prevention Corps. "Once you get kids in that position, they try it, and guess what – it's addictive."

Movement spreading
Porter said environmental groups from other cities began calling her for advice after the Solana Beach council's landmark vote last fall. Six months later, bans were cropping up throughout coastal Southern California.
Stephanie Barger, executive director of the Costa Mesa-based Earth Resource Foundation, said Solana Beach served as an example for grass-roots campaigns in Orange County.

"We really used that as a model for us," she said.

The Earth Resource Foundation and other organizations conferred frequently with Porter while pressing officials in Orange County to outlaw beach smoking. In March, San Clemente became the second city in the state to forbid it, a move replicated a week later by Santa Monica. Los Angeles soon followed suit, as did Malibu, Huntington Beach, Carpinteria and Newport Beach. The Capitola City Council on Thursday voted unanimously in favor of a ban.

Los Angeles County enacted a temporary ban in late June that will run through Thursday on two county-run beaches, Topanga and Marina.

On Tuesday, the Laguna Beach City Council is scheduled to vote on a ban, and the Manhattan Beach council plans to consider an ordinance Sept. 21. Similar measures are under consideration in Santa Cruz and Long Beach.

In San Diego County, the Encinitas City Council voted down such legislation in April. Councilman Jerome Stocks, who sided against the proposed ordinance, said he thought a ban would be better suited as a ballot measure.

"That's the type of issue that should really go before the voters," he said.

Mixed reactions
In Solana Beach, as in other California cities, officials are counting on beachgoers to police themselves, though a violator can be slapped with a $100 fine. New signs notify visitors of the law, and lifeguards here say they've encountered little resistance. Nobody has been cited since the ban went into effect, and lifeguards say they have had to warn only about one lawbreaker a day.
"Even smokers themselves have been pretty positive about this," said Solana Beach Fire Chief David Ott, who oversees the city's lifeguards.

Shera Hardy of Gilbert, Ariz., said during a recent trip to Del Mar Shores Beach Park in Solana Beach with her family that the city made the right move.

"Now, if they ban beer, they're in trouble," she joked, sipping a Miller Lite.

Another vacationer, Sara Clark, applauded the city's decision and predicted that similar bans would gradually gain acceptance in other parts of the country.

"We're always 10 years behind California," said Clark, who lives in Iowa.

Not all beachgoers were as pleased with the ban. Eli Duron, a Santa Clarita resident and former smoker, said city officials should focus on other issues, such as the aircraft and helicopters frequently seen – and heard – skimming the shoreline.

"I don't think the cigarette butts are that big of a deal," he said.

Leading anti-smoking activist Patrick Reynolds, a grandson of tobacco company founder R.J. Reynolds, said the bans are the result of "an idea whose time has come" – no matter what the industry says.

"The tobacco companies always try to portray us as fanatics or zealots," he said. "But the truth is these are reasonable laws, intended in this case to prevent litter and protect non-smokers."

Assemblyman Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, a staunch advocate of tighter smoking regulations and the author of the failed state beach smoking bill, said the Solana Beach prohibition has raised national and global awareness. He pointed to recent bans at beaches in Sydney, Australia, as evidence that the movement has spread overseas.

"It's gone from an issue that nobody cared about to one that has gained worldwide attention," he said. "I would be surprised if smoking's not banned at beaches all over the world within a few years."

Koretz said bans in Southern California served as templates for his bill.

Teresa Stark, Koretz's chief of staff, said her boss hasn't decided whether he will revive the bill next year. The measure encountered stiff resistance from the tobacco industry and smokers' rights groups in Sacramento. Philip Morris USA lobbied against it, and other companies expressed their opposition.

RJ Reynolds Tobacco Co. spokesman David Howard said beach smoking bans are "over the top" and don't address the true source of the problem: littering.

"If the problem is litter on the beach, why aren't they going after littering entirely?" he asked. "To me, that doesn't make sense."

It doesn't make sense to Domkus, either. The smokers' rights group president said he used to enjoy visiting Santa Monica and Leo Carrillo state beaches before they became smoke-free. Now he stays away.

Domkus said the cities that have outlawed smoking on their beaches this year are merely "a bunch of sheep following Solana Beach."

"It's absolute, total discrimination," he said. "What I've been told is I'm not welcome there."

Porter said smokers are welcome at places like Solana Beach. Just don't think of lighting up on the sand.

Ben Fuchs: (760) 476-8208;

Thursday, September 02, 2004

From: Garnet Dawn
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 11:24 PM
Subject: A Majority of Chicagoans Favor Smoke-Free Restaurants......


The information below could help, should Chicagoans (or other communities/cities in IL) be threatened by another smoking ban.

This is my follow-up to a news story published on Medill News Service. It was called: Study: Most Chicagoans favor smoke-free restaurants, Department of Health outlines smoking trends in city. This story ran on on Thursday, August 19, 2004 12:38 AM CDT.

The article stated:

"CHICAGO -- A majority of Chicagoans favor smoke-free restaurants, bars and indoor work places, according to a new study released Wednesday by the Chicago Department of Public Health.

Nonetheless, officials said they are unsure whether Chicago will follow New York and Los Angeles in banning citywide smoking in a majority of public places any time soon.

According to the report, more than 4,000 Chicagoans died as a result of smoking in 1999. Deaths stemming from second-hand smoke (which studies show puts nonsmokers at risk for lung cancer, heart disease and respiratory disease) were not included in the data. The report was issued at a Chicago Department of Public Health meeting at DePaul University's Loop campus."


Both a Study and a Report exist. The report uses statistics from the BRFSS Chicago Health Dept study, along with many other references, and then presents opinions and discussions combining all the sources. Both are really from the CDC. "The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) is a collaboration between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and state health departments."

The study only includes demographic statistics taken from the answers of a cross section of Chicagoans surveyed on a wide range of topics, entitled "Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS): Chicago Reference Tables 2001, dated August 2004", at

The newspaper reference to "A Majority of Chicagoans Prefer Smoke Free Restaurants...." was taken from a bar graph in the report, labeled "Attitudes toward smoking in restaurants and indoor work areas, Chicago 2000 (BRFSS)". Smoking preferences were in no way addressed in the CDPH study. The "discussion" topics in the report used tired references from previous studies, and gave the smoking bans in California and New York as examples. How can health experts continue to believe that repeating the same lies over and over will make them true?

The actual percentage statistics given for Chicagoans preferring smoke free restaurants was 61%. Using the report's figures, that means 39% of the people in Chicago DO NOT support a restaurant smoking ban. Sounds like a smoking ban would make many, many residents very unhappy. I also wonder how many of those who said they favor no-smoking in restaurants realize what a ban really means, and how the questions regarding smoking preferences were worded.

One more note, it is very comforting to know that "In the state of Illinois, 1.3% of 9.1 billion dollars in tobacco generated revenue is spent on tobacco prevention programs...." I wonder how Illinois spends the other 98.7%?

Ms. Garnet,

As promised, here is the finalized Epidemiology of Cigarette Smoking in Chicago, June 2004 program report's URL from our web site:

Please let us know if we can assist you with anything else in the future.



Mike Neff
Sr. Public Information Officer, CDPH
(312) 745-0232


Excerpts from report below:

Epidemiology of Cigarette Smoking in Chicago, Page 33

In 1998, this report stressed that the main component needed to lower smoking prevalence and
smoking related deaths in the Chicago area was community resolve. Many community groups and
governmental agencies have risen to this challenge in the past six years. In the state of Illinois, 1.3% of
9.1 billion dollars in tobacco generated revenue is spent on tobacco prevention programs, or 12 million
dollars (in both 2003 and 2004). Five million dollars of this was sent to local health departments, one
million dollars was spent on the tobacco quit line, one million dollars was set aside for evaluation and
research, and the other five million was spent on non-tobacco related projects (Campaign for Tobacco
free kids, 2003).


Page 33 (continued)


In addition to preventing illegal sales, taxation is another strategy to reduce access. Federally,
the National Center for Tobacco Free Kids campaign reported in 2003 that the current Federal tax rate
on a pack of cigarettes was 39 cents per pack. By 1995, all states and the District of Columbia had
imposed an excise tax on cigarettes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health Promotion,
2002; Campaign for Tobacco-free kids, 2004). The average tax rate among all states was 69.9 cents per
pack, and in Illinois the tax rate was 98 cents per pack as of July 2002 (Campaign for Tobacco-free kids,
2004). However, Illinois has seen a large increase in Cook County -- the cigarette tax was raised by 82
cents in early 2004. This new tax brings the total cost of a pack of cigarettes in Cook County to around
$5.63 per pack, with federal, state, and local taxes totaling $2.53. Appendix D also gives a recent cost
comparison in local drug stores (USA Today, 2004; Ciokajlo, 2004; Olmstead, 2004). Presently, Chicago
has the second highest cost for cigarettes in the nation, second only to New York City (USA Today, 2004).

While this tax may lower the smoking prevalence and reduce the number of smoking-attributable
deaths in the Chicago area, some feel Chicagoans will be inclined to purchase cigarettes over the
internet or drive to local counties with lower taxes. The impact of this tax is still uncertain, and the true
impact on smoking prevalence will take a few years to assess. Local business owners of small shops are
bracing for potential economic losses, but after the first year of new smoking ordinances in New
Findings York City, there appear to be no significant economic losses (New York City Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene, 2004). While youth smoking is suspected to decline, some suspect crime
involving bootlegged cigarettes may occur as in New York City (USA Today, 2004).


Epidemiology of Cigarette Smoking in Chicago, Page 36

Figure 9.2 Attitudes toward smoking in restaurants and indoor work areas, Chicago 2000(BRFSS)

In 2000, a small percentage of Chicagoans thought smoking should be allowed in all areas of restaurants and indoor
work areas. The majority of those surveyed felt smoking should not be allowed at all in restaurants (61%) and indoor work areas

DiscussionS e c o n d - h a n d smoke (SHS) exposure has become an increasing health concern since investigation in the 1970s (Bayer &
Colgrove, 2002). Two major meta analyses from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1992, and the state of California in
1997, showed that exposure to SHS can increase lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory diseases. Other
more recent studies supported these findings (U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, 2004). Cigarette smoke is
now classified as a Group A (known human) carcinogen by the EPA (Shopland, Hartman, Repace, &
Lynn, 1995). The EPA estimates that about 3,000 lung cancer deaths are due to SHS yearly and 62,000
deaths related to coronary heart disease in nonsmokers in the US (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and Health Promotion, 2003c; U.S. Surgeon General’s Office, 2004; Fisher, 2000). Restricting
exposure of workers and children is now a prominent health concern for the public health community
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000).

Smoking in work places

As of June 2004 several states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, and
New York) and at least 72 municipalities nation wide have passed legislation to eliminate smoking in
the majority of work sites, restaurants, and bars (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Health
Promotion, 2004a). Flight attendants and casino workers have been some of the most active groups to
file lawsuits against the tobacco industry (U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs,
2000; Decker, Trout, Mueller, Bernert, & Pirkle, 1998). Some casinos have banned smoking in certain
areas (Fisher, 2000; Decker et al., 1998). Smoking has been prohibited on domestic and international
flights in and out of the US since June of 2000 (Fisher, 2000; U.S.Department of Transportation, Office
of Public Affairs, 2000). Those working in restaurants and bars in some states are still exposed to SHS.

Regarding the pollution level in smoking bars, the New York City Department of Health reported that
the average air pollution levels in bars that permitted smoking were as much as 50 times higher than
at the entrance of the Holland tunnel during rush hour. An average 6-fold reduction in air pollution
levels was found in 3 bars after 1 year, and an 85% decline in cotinine levels in bar employees was
observed (New York City Department of Finance, Health and Mental Hygiene, Small Business Services,
and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, 2004).
Epidemiology of Cigarette Smoking in Chicago, Page 37
While many states have already banned smoking in workplaces including restaurants and bars,
some groups are concerned that banning smoking in bars and restaurants will negatively impact revenue
for business owners and tourism. Recent studies have reported that there was no impact on tourism and
hotel revenues in three states (California, Utah, and Vermont) and six cities (Boulder, CO; Flagstaff and
Mesa AZ; Los Angeles and San Francisco, CA; and New York, NY) where smoke free ordinances for
restaurants have been passed. Other research has produced similar findings in at least 89 cities in six
states (Glantz & Smith, 1997; Glantz, 1999). A one-year follow up in New York City has also found no
adverse effects on revenue in restaurants and bars due to smoking bans, but it is unknown if this finding
will persist in future years (New York City Department of Finance, Health and Mental Hygiene, Small
Business Services, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation, 2004). The Social Climate
Survey of Tobacco Control (SCS-TC) from 2000-2001 also suggested that U.S. adult smokers and
nonsmokers both support restrictions on smoking in almost all indoor public settings (McMillen,
Winickoff, Klein, & Weitzman, 2003).

Tobacco's lure still strong in war zone

Letters to the Editor
The San Diego Union-Tribune
PO Box 120191
San Diego, CA, 92112-0191

To Whom It May Concern:

The above article was well composed and informative, but I take exception to statements made by the Vice President of Government Relations for the local Lung Association, the Pulmonologist and the Democratic Representative from Los Angeles.

It is my opinion that Ms. Kelley, Dr. Amundson, and US Rep. Henry Waxman should make a trip to Iraq to inform our troups of the dangers of smoking first hand. Rather than making condescending statements warning of the dangers of smoking from their safe air-conditioned offices in the USA, they should enjoy the amenities that living in a combat zone in Iraq can provide.

It's bad enough that our troops are targeted by terrorist bullets. It's a tragedy that so many of them will die because they were targeted by Big Tobacco," said Debra Kelley, vice president of government relations for the local Lung Association.
Kelley, of the American Lung Association, thinks the military must do what health organizations and government have done to fight smoking: Make cigarettes more expensive and make the habit less socially acceptable.

Ms Kelley's statement is completely outrageous. Ms Kelly should know when it's time to give her soapbox a rest!! It is absolutely unbelievable that an educated person can make such callous statements regarding our military!!!

Amundson, the pulmonologist, believes that even in combat zones, alternatives to smoking such as exercise could discourage troops from picking up the habit.
I would like to see Dr. Amundson propose his "exercise" alternative in person to the servicemen now stationed in Iraq . The USA has exposed military personnel to Agent Orange and Biochemical Weapons in the past. What chemicals are they being exposed to in this "war"?

"It appears that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco is seeking to revive the disastrous policy of distributing free tobacco products to men and women in the armed services," U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, wrote in a complaint to the company. "This is a reprehensible practice that puts your profits ahead of the welfare of American servicemen and women."

Excuse me, but somehow I cannot reconcile Rep. Waxman's two phrases of "distributing free tobacco products" and "a practice that puts your profits ahead of the welfare....." in the same statement. Possibly, some time in the future there could be profits. In the mean time, give our soldiers a break and be glad if something can be done to make their current situation a little more pleasant.


Garnet Dawn
Lake Bluff, IL


Tobacco's lure still strong in war zone

Spike in use by troops feared by health experts
By Michael Stetz
August 29, 2004

In Iraq, Marines and soldiers face rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and mortar attacks. As if that isn't enough, another danger stalks them, too, one that can't be stopped by even the best body armor.

As soldiers did in World Wars I and II, Korea and Vietnam, troops in Iraq are lighting up cigarettes. Health officials fear that the habit, which had been on the rise in the military before the war began, is spiking now that more than 140,000 U.S. troops are in Iraq.

Troops say smoking helps combat the stress, boredom and loneliness that life in a war zone can bring. But health officials worry that the smokers will have to battle lung cancer, heart disease and emphysema years later, when they're safe at home and telling their grandchildren about their days in uniform.

Although the Department of Defense hasn't studied smoking rates in Iraq, deployed troops and returning personnel say the trend is hard to miss.

Dennis Amundson, a Navy captain and pulmonologist, got back from Iraq in July 2003. The number of soldiers and Marines he saw smoking "was shocking," said Amundson, who sits on the board of the American Lung Association of San Diego and Imperial Counties. Still, he can understand why troops light up, given the tension of combat.

He was in Iraq during the invasion. He saw people who had quit for years pick the habit back up. He saw people who had never smoked give it a try.

"The cigarette became important to them," he said.

Some researchers question whether smoking relieves stress. They say the feeling of relief comes from the body getting the jolt of nicotine it craves, not because nicotine has any remarkable soothing power.

Amundson figures it's primarily the need for comfort that makes people ignore warnings that health organizations have made common knowledge. People in war zones revert to habits they enjoyed in less unsettling times.

Also, smoking is a social activity, he said. Soldiers huddle together. They talk. And they smoke.

GI Joe and smokes don't exactly go together the way they did in the old days, though, when cigarettes were distributed to soldiers for free. Today's military runs programs that discourage smoking and promote physical fitness. But tobacco's appeal persists.

The British, for instance, recently studied smoking rates among those attached to a field hospital in Iraq. They found that 42 percent smoked – up from the 34 percent before deployment.

The study was worrisome because those questioned were part of a medical work force – people fully aware of the health risks of smoking.

In 2002, before the war, a survey of U.S. troops showed smoking on the rise after more than two decades of steady decline. It revealed that 34 percent smoked, up from the 30 percent in 1998.

By comparison, only about a quarter of the U.S. civilian population smokes. Residents of health-conscious California boast an even lower rate – 16 percent.

"It's bad enough that our troops are targeted by terrorist bullets. It's a tragedy that so many of them will die because they were targeted by Big Tobacco," said Debra Kelley, vice president of government relations for the local Lung Association.

Battlefield tradition
The bad-for-your-health argument can be a tough sell to combat troops who worry about making it to tomorrow. They could get shot, hit by shrapnel, blown up, run over, become blind, lose a leg, arm, foot . . .
Soldiers and Marines serving in Iraq say smoking is something to do. It's also not out of the ordinary to see officers smoke, which is rare stateside, according to Marines who declined to give their names.

One Marine calls those who smoke only in combat conditions "field smokers." Recently, for instance, about 100 Camp Pendleton-based Marines searched an area near Fallujah, and afterward, as can be the custom, they broke into groups and broke out cigarettes.

In a May issue of Time magazine, weary Marines are pictured enjoying smokes after an intense firefight. The photograph could have been shot 50 years ago, before the dangers of smoking were medically proven.

In earlier conflicts, such as the Civil War, soldiers smoked cigars or tobacco out of pipes. By World War I, the mass production of cigarettes was in full swing and soldiers found them easier to smoke. Army doctors even touted the benefits of cigarettes, saying they reduced the pain of the wounded.

By World War II, smoking had become a staple among troops. Cigarettes were even included in soldiers' rations, a practice that wasn't halted until 1975.

That proved to be costly. Countless numbers became addicted, and the nation is still paying to treat veterans suffering from smoking-related illnesses.

Tobacco companies continued to target the military even after the giveaways ended.

A 1989 tobacco company marketing document released as part of the lawsuits filed against the industry in the 1990s said military personnel were good target customers because they had "a classic downscale smoker background." The document, from R.J. Reynolds, noted that they were "blue collar, less educated" and had "poor academic performances, limited job prospects."

Other documents outlined the company's effort to create a macho-oriented cigarette that soldiers would find particularly enticing, as well as a move to fight the military's smoking-cessation programs. R.J. Reynolds said it does not comment on documents recovered from litigation.

Even in this day and age – after tobacco companies have been taken to the mat for their practices – some continue with questionable behavior.

When the war in Iraq began, U.S. Smokeless Tobacco, the maker of Skoal and other brands of snuff, sent free samples to Marines. The company said Marines were complaining that they couldn't find the products in Iraq. Samples were sent only to those who requested them, said company spokesman Mike Bazinet. The offer was made before supply chains were in place, he said, and the practice was halted soon after the war's start.

Regardless, some politicians fumed.

"It appears that U.S. Smokeless Tobacco is seeking to revive the disastrous policy of distributing free tobacco products to men and women in the armed services," U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, wrote in a complaint to the company. "This is a reprehensible practice that puts your profits ahead of the welfare of American servicemen and women."

The challenge
Kelley, of the American Lung Association, thinks the military must do what health organizations and government have done to fight smoking: Make cigarettes more expensive and make the habit less socially acceptable.
"That's part of the challenge that the military has not risen to," she said.

The military maintains that it aggressively fights smoking. Smoking-cessation programs are available, and smoking isn't allowed in barracks or in military offices. Cigarettes are sold in military outlets, but the prices must be in line with what nearby civilian stores charge so they won't be enticing, according to the Army & Air Force Exchange Service.

This price-check applies overseas, as well. At a camp in Iraq, name-brand cigarettes cost $3.90 a pack – about the same price an Ocean Beach convenience store charges.

The military's stateside effort to discourage smoking apparently dissipates a bit in a war zone, though. And that would hardly be shocking.

"They (the Marines) have a lot on their plates," said Lt. Nathan Branden, a Camp Pendleton spokesman.

Amundson, the pulmonologist, believes that even in combat zones, alternatives to smoking such as exercise could discourage troops from picking up the habit.

That can be a challenge, though. When he was in Iraq, Marines and soldiers were wearing full body armor. For obvious reasons, they weren't about to strip down to shorts for a game of hoops.

Many smoked.

"It was a war zone," he said. "What else could you do?"


Staff writer Rick Rogers contributed to this report from Iraq.

Michael Stetz: (619) 293-1720;

From: Garnet Dawn
To: Canadian Smokers
Sent: Monday, August 30, 2004 10:38 PM

Subject: Prairie provinces grappling with financial losses as a result of smoking bans


Another article of interest on the negative effects of smoking bans:

It would seem Donna Pasiechnik of the American Cancer Society needs to be reminded that airports, airport procedures and air travel are not pleasurable any more, but sometimes necessary to get from point 'A' to point 'B'. In order to see a large screen movie, going without a cigarette for two-to-three hours while being entertained in a theater is "doable". Still, many people do not attend theaters as regularly as they did in the past. However, spending time in a Casino, restaurant, bar, etc is very different from a plane or movie, as the place itself is the entertainment.

Comparing airlines and theaters to restaurants and bars parallels comparing apples to oranges.

Garnet Dawn

Thursday, September 2, 2004 Monday, August 30, 2004

Prairie provinces grappling with financial losses as a result of smoking bans

Julian Branch
Canadian Press
Monday, August 30, 2004

REGINA (CP) - Health advocates may be applauding the growing movement to ban smoking in public places, but people who operate casinos, bars and even charity bingos say they're losing millions.

"There will be closures. There's no question about it. They cannot survive," said Tom Mullin, vice-president of the Hotels Association of Saskatchewan.

Mullin is bracing his members for a provincewide smoking ban, which comes into effect in January.

"We estimate the video lottery terminal revenues in Saskatchewan will fall by about $20 to $30 million as a result of the ban," he said.

Mullin said the problem stems from the fact that a large majority of people who play VLTs also smoke.

The effect smoking bans can have on businesses have already been seen in other parts of the country.

The Manitoba Lotteries Corp. says it has seen a $20-million drop in revenues since Winnipeg put in a smoking ban last September. A provincewide ban to be implemented later this year is expected to drain at least $50 million annually. About 270 workers - about 16 per cent of the corporation's workforce - recently accepted buyouts as a result of the revenue shortfall.

In Edmonton, charities are worried about the possible downside of a smoking ban. By next July, bars, bingo halls, and casinos will have to join restaurants in going smoke-free. The charities estimate the move may cost them $14 million a year.

"It will devastate the charities that work the bingos," said Bill Graham, president of the Alberta Bingo Associations.

"That means the hockey groups, the gymnastics groups, the swim clubs will have to take more money out of their pockets or fold."

Mullin's group in Saskatchewan is lobbying the provincial government to provide designated smoking areas in bars, but the odds of winning such a concession appear slim.

Deputy premier Clay Serby has already met with Mullin to discuss the situation and another meeting is being planned for next month. Serby said the NDP government is unlikely to allow designated smoking areas, but he doesn't dispute Mullin's grim forecast.

"There will be an impact here on the industry and there will be impact on their bottom line and there will be impact on our bottom line," Serby said.

"I think it's incumbent on governments to examine when there is hardship. And there is hardship here. We're not diminishing that issue at all."

The government is committed to looking at ways to help businesses which may be hurt by the smoking ban.

But while the hospitality industry and charities are bemoaning the loss of dollars, Donna Pasiechnik with the Canadian Cancer Society said jurisdictions that have had smoking bans in place for some time need to be studied before any conclusions can be drawn.

"To suggest that a lack of smoking is solely responsible for VLT revenues going down or charities going down, I think is a bit simplistic," she said.

Pasiechnik acknowledged there is a "temporary transition" when smoking bans are implemented, but business always returns to normal.

"You'll remember when they were talking about banning smoking on airlines and in theatres and people were up in arms that smokers aren't going to fly and nobody will go to movies.

"And now when we think about it, it was a ridiculous argument and it never did happen and life goes on."

© The Canadian Press 2004

Following are the proposed plans for financing the WHO FCTC Global Treaty:
Alliance Bulletin

Framwork Convention on Tobacco Control

Geneva, Switzerland
Issue 50
25 June 2004

Focus on finance

The FCTC is a fantastic package of measures, but as delegates have emphasized in discussions inside and outside the Board Room, without the right cash, none of it is going to happen. Thursday’s discussions ranged over the issues, but detail is urgently needed before progress can be made.

The treaty establishes Parties’ basic commitment to find funding, but the questions remain — what for? How much from each Party? Can’t anyone else pay?

The first Conference of the Parties will have to review the Secretariat’s report and other sources of information on existing and potential sources of funding, and determine whether a global fund or some other mechanism will be needed to meet the objectives of the FCTC. It is crucial that the study and other sources of information provided to the COP provide full answers to the main questions crystallized in Thursday’s regional and plenary meetings.

Two sets of costs

1. Core costs — the Secretariat and COP running costs. These should be relatively easy to estimate based on the experiences of the interim Secretariat and comparisons with the costs of running other comparable treaties. The UN scale of assessment provides one model for spreading these costs among parties.

2. Implementation costs — these are much more difficult to estimate at this stage, but key questions are emerging about what should be scoped. Decisions need to be made about how to cover:

• Costs of implementing international- level interventions, e.g. action on smuggling, global monitoring and surveillance etc.

• Costs of national-level implementation — public education programmes, smoke-free policy, cessation services etc.

• Impact costs that will disproportionately fall on some countries, notably the cost of supporting tobacco farmers and production workers into alternative income sources.

Two ways to identify resources

Existing funds — the FCTC emphasizes that there are already many potential sources of funding for tobacco control. Regional and international intergovernmental organizations, financial and development institutions, aid channels, public and private sources all offer potential, and tobacco control agencies must develop their capacity in applying to these funds.

Dedicated funds — the FCTC also raises the option of creating a global tobacco control fund to assist with implementation. While this could ease the fund-raising burden for individual Parties, it would be at the expense of transferring the burden to the COP.

Two ways to create a global fund

If the global fund concept is favoured, then the next main question is whether it should be created from assessed or voluntary contributions. The assessed approach would give security, but require more buy in from high income Parties. A voluntary approach could be easier to agree, but might provide a much less secure fund.

Obligatory funding mechanisms and FCTC ratification by poorer countries

Some IWG delegates have expressed concern that contributing to the Secretariat could make ratification too expensive for some countries, particularly in Africa. A comparison with the budget for the Convention on Biological Diversity suggests this is very unlikely to happen with the FCTC.

Obligatory funding for the CBD amounts to US $8 million (for 2004-05); yet 71 countries have to pay less than $500 per year for the CBD Secretariat. In Africa, the biggest contributor is South Africa, with $30,478. Even populous Nigeria is assessed at only $4,384, while many smaller countries pay only the minimum contribution of $104: Angola, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Lesotho, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Togo.

The key to ensuring that contributions are kept similarly low for the FCTC Secretariat is for industrialized countries to ratify.

Japan (already ratified) is the biggest single contributor to the Convention on Biological Diversity, at $1.8 million.

(The United States, with the world’s biggest economy, is not a party to the CBD — surprise, surprise.)

Germany, the UK, France and Italy contribute $904,097, $639,506, $629,382 and $509,872 respectively.
Canada and Spain chip in close to $300,000 each.

Other EU countries chip in almost $1 million between them. Thus, more than half the budget for the CBD Secretariat is covered by the seven largest contributors. Fortunately, all seven of those countries are also likely to ratify the FCTC.