Tobacco committee meetings should be open to the public

On Thursday, the Advisory Committee on Tobacco Policy held an open forum to encourage public input on the proposed smoking ban. Later that day, it held a meeting to discuss the results of that forum. This meeting, like all the others, was closed to the public.

We have to wonder why.

The open forum was a good attempt to encourage outside input and give students and faculty a chance to air opinions on both sides.

But because of the nature of the committee and its work, it was impossible to get a real answer to any of the questions. Each answer amounted to, “That’s a good point. We’ll be sure to take it into consideration.”

Which is exactly the purpose of the advisory committee. But how does the public know their opinions are really being taken into account if they are barred from the meetings?

The university has often stressed its commitment to transparency and student input. It has claimed that this committee’s recommendations will be an important part of any decision made about the smoking ban.

If the administration is serious about these claims, it should be willing to prove them. Prove to us that our opinions are actually being taken into account, and that the committee is actually expecting its work to matter. Let us witness these things for ourselves by attending the meetings.

Some members of the OU community have expressed doubt that the committee’s work will matter at all, claiming that the decision was made as soon as Boren announced his support for a campuswide ban.

The tobacco committee and the administration have both been insistent that this is not the case. We call on them to prove it.

There’s no obvious reason the committee should be closed to the public. Yes, technically, these committee meetings don’t fall under the Open Meeting Act, because the committee is not a decision-making body.

But even outside of legal requirements, the administration could still choose to open them to public attendance.

We’re not asking for time at every meeting for the public to speak before the committee. That would slow down the process considerably. And it would be no more effective than the means people have already used to express their opinions.

We simply want the public to be able to attend the meetings and watch the discussions, to ensure those opinions are being taken into account and hold the committee accountable to its promise to consider all sides of the issue.

It’s possible that the committee is worried that the public’s conduct could get out of hand due to the passion evoked by this issue. After all, we can see from the letters and comments we’ve received, as well as the remarks at the public forum, that the smoking ban proposal inspires fervent opinions from both sides.

So students, if the administration decided to open the meetings, you would need to show that this right is important by attending them and refrain from disrupting the proceedings by remaining respectful observers.

We’re not sure why the administration has chosen to keep these meetings closed, but whatever the reason, we urge it to reconsider.

A little transparency in this process could go a long way toward helping both sides better understand each other’s arguments, which could lead to an effective compromise — or at least reduce the inevitable bitterness from the losing side.

More publicity needed on smoke-free living

How many have taken an early start to quit smoking? November is Lung Cancer and Tobacco Awareness Month! The color for lung cancer is white or pearl. Tobacco awareness is brown. Lavender is the color representing all cancers.

Last month, there was a letter on the Opinion Page, concerning smoking bans. It would have made a great story for Lung Cancer Awareness Month. So little is written about tobacco awareness, and lung cancer.

Stephanie Truly’s article has been the only thing the paper has printed, and we are halfway through the month.

The paper could invest some time in printing at least one tip, or what changes your body makes, when one gives up cigarettes.

The funding for lung cancer is severely lacking, compared to breast. It would be great if all cancers received the same funding.

Funding enables states to provide education, smoking cessation classes, or even a support group. Sixty-five thousand nonsmokers die yearly, from secondhand smoke, than women die of breast cancer.

The only way to have a safe environment for workers and patrons, is to implement a Smoke Free Air Act, which eliminates indoor smoking in all buildings. Smoke has no boundaries; smoke can waft into the nonsmoking areas.

Secondhand smoke contains 60+ carcinogens and 4,000 toxins remaining in the air, for up to two weeks. I was surprised to learn that no ventilation system will completely remove secondhand smoke. The only sure way is to eliminate smoking indoors completely.

New York City, adopted the Smoke Free Air Act in March of 2003. This change increased sales of two million dollars for the better, in the first year bars and restaurants enacted the Smoke Free Air Act. Other cities have had an increase in their business, when there is no-smoking.

Something else to think about; cigarettes are comparable to meth. Both are very addicting. Both include smoking toxic chemicals. Both contain carcinogens, and toxins. The similarities are frightening.

Here are a few insightful quotes from those in government on Smoke Free Air Act:

Eric Turner, Indiana State representative:

“Indiana is behind the curve. In other states, you can take your children and babies (into restaurants) and know they’ll not have to breathe secondhand smoke.”

Quoted In: Higgins, W., “Smoke-free workplace advocates gather at Statehouse,” Indianapolis Star, Sept. 8, 2010.

Hugh Holliman, North Carolina state representative:

“There is overwhelming scientific evidence that proves secondhand smoke causes heart disease, lung cancer, respiratory illnesses and kills tens of thousands of Americans every year. It is time for North Carolina to join the growing momentum across the nation to protect the rights of all our citizens to breathe clean, smoke-free air.”

Quoted In: [n.a.], “No smoking: House bill would bar lighting up in workplaces, bars and restaurants,” Fayetteville Observer, Jan. 30, 2009

Joseph Vitale, New Jersey senator:

“Thousands of workers each and every day are exposed to secondhand smoke. Why should thousands of casino workers be subject to cancer and emphysema?”

Quoted In: McAleer, P., “Full ban on casino smoking approved by Senate,” Press of Atlantic City, June 22, 2007.

There are several more I could post, but the message is clear. The only way for smoke-free air is to eliminate indoor smoking. Certainly the restaurant and bar business benefits.

Google American Lung Association for more facts and tips on how to quit, and see what changes your body goes through, when you stop. I know there are enough changes for a new fact each day for the month of November.

Cain’s campaign ad didn’t deserve flak for cigarette usage

You can smoke in films and win an Academy Award – just ask Colin Firth, who played a king who was arguably a chain-smoker in “The King’s Speech” – but you sure can’t let your campaign manager smoke in a campaign ad.

My most recent column consisted of me largely bashing on Herman Cain and his silly “9-9-9 plan” and yet now, in a strange turn of events, this one will defend him.

For those of you who are unaware, the Herman Cain presidential campaign put up an ad where his chief of staff, Mark Block, smokes a cigarette. The ad ends with Cain making what I would describe as a creepy, Cheshire Cat-like grin.

I don’t think too many people would argue that it’s a good advertisement because, to put it simply, it’s not. It’s terrible. However, the fact that Block smokes a cigarette in the ad is not that big of a deal.

Critics are arguing that the ad promotes smoking, but there’s simply no basis for that. No one in the ad ever says that smoking is to be encouraged and, if anything, Block looks so awkward smoking in the ad that it’s hardly going to make any teenagers think that smoking is cool.

People smoke in films all the time. Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character in “The Ides of March” – a character who happens to be a political consultant very much like Block, as a matter of fact – smokes multiple cigarettes in the film. People smoke on TV all the time. Just ask the cast members on “Jersey Shore.”

Yes, that’s right, this is the second column about Herman Cain that’s contained a comparison between his campaign and “Jersey Shore.” I’m not sure who should be more offended, Cain or Snooki.

But whether we admit it or not, Snooki is more of an icon to the youth of America than Mark Block will ever be. Few people knew who he was before this ad went viral, and fewer will probably be able to recognize him a week from now. So is the fact that he smoked a cigarette on camera that big of a deal?

Of course it’s not. It’s his choice to smoke. He’s not encouraging anyone else to smoke, but he’s also not hurting anyone other than himself.

Our society is so set on interfering in everyone else’s lives that you can no longer smoke anywhere … evidently even outside if you’re on camera.

This fits into a bigger picture of smoking being banned pretty much everywhere. New York City recently banned smoking in certain areas outside.

Chicago’s pot dilemma: Should marijuana users just be ticketed?

Every pot smoker — the kid down the street, your neighbor with the nice house, the co-worker in the next cubicle — has a “guy.”

That guy has a guy, who has a guy, who has a guy.

The top marijuana guys — Mexico’s murderous drug cartels — are responsible for most of the pot sold on Chicago street corners. They’ve even started growing it in Wisconsin’s North Woods.

In recent years, another top “guy” has come to town: weed growers in Colorado and California licensed to supply the medical marijuana dispensaries operating in those states. They sell their surplus in Chicago and other places where the drug is illegal.

For those guys, Chicago is a dangerous place. They might wind up in prison, or even dead.

But their customers — dime-bag dealers and pot smokers — don’t have much to fear from the criminal justice system here. For them, weed has been essentially decriminalized, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.

Last year, Chicago Police officers arrested more than 23,000 people on misdemeanor marijuana charges, and most of those cases were dropped. From 2006 through 2010, cases for possession of less than 2.5 grams of marijuana were dismissed 97 percent of the time. Eighty-four percent of pot possession cases involving 2.5 grams to 10 grams were tossed out of court; and 57 percent involving 10 to 30 grams met the same end, according to the Cook County Clerk of the Circuit Court.

On Oct. 14, Cook County prosecutors did a spot check of marijuana cases at a branch court at Kedzie and Harrison. There were 15 new petty pot cases that came before the judge. Every case got dropped.

So far, there isn’t a politician proposing weaker penalties for the top marijuana guys. But local leaders and law-enforcement authorities are looking for a more practical punishment for the 100 to 150 people facing petty pot cases every day in Cook County.

Last week, several Chicago aldermen proposed an ordinance that would allow cops to write tickets to people caught with small amounts of pot. Behind the scenes, police and prosecutors have been quietly considering a similar solution.

Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the U.S. — with more than 17 million regular users in 2010, a 20 percent jump over just three years, according to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.

With so many pot smokers out there, proposals to lessen criminal penalties for minor marijuana possession are “a step in the right direction,” said Dan Linn, a regular pot smoker and head of the Illinois chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws.

In Chicago the question remains: Is Mayor Rahm Emanuel willing to be the guy to take that step?

Poll shows near split on cigarette taxes

Taxation of cigarette sales on Native American reservations is an issue on which voters appear to be almost evenly split.

That may be a sign that the perennial issue simply isn't that important to them, said pollster Larry Harris, principal of Mason Dixon Polling & Research of Washington, D.C. Issues such as the state of the economy and jobs reveal greater attachment, he suggested.

Among respondents in the Voice of the Voter poll, 46 percent support the state's efforts to collect taxes on reservation sales of cigarettes to non-Native Americans, while 50 percent said they oppose it and 4 percent were undecided.

At first glance, those results suggest there's been a shift in thought. In the 2010 Voice of the Voter poll, 53 percent of voters polled supported the state's efforts, just 40 percent opposed them, and 7 percent were undecided.

But Harris said when the poll's margin for error of 4.5 percent is taken into account, the opinion shift is really minimal.

"You wouldn't say there's been a whipsaw in political opinion. It was never overwhelmingly supported nor is it now overwhelmingly opposed," Harris said. "It's not a top-of-mind issue with folks."

Indeed, among a handful of poll participants queried about the issue, several were unaware of or dismissive of details such as federal treaties with native Nations that would seem to prohibit or at least hinder the state's ability to collect taxes.

"I want to help the Indians but I also think we need their tax money," said Dolores Sibs, a retired teacher and Greece resident who described herself as "over 70."

"This is new times now and you have to go with the situations of the times," Sibs said. "There's a lot of these grandfather clauses that have to be changed."

Court stops MMDA smoking ban

A Mandaluyong City trial court has issued a writ of preliminary injunction against the Metro Manila Development Authority(MMDA)'s anti-smoking campaign in Metro Manila.

In a six-page order handed down on Tuesday, Mandaluyong Regional Trial Court(RTC) Branch 21 Judge Carlos Valenzuela enjoined MMDA Chairman Francis Tolentino and those persons acting within his authority to stop from arresting persons who will be caught smoking in public places along major and secondary roads in the metropolis and places not listed in Republic Act No. 9211(Tobacco Regulation Act of 2003).

The injunctive writ stays until the court lifts it or until the pending case filed by a certain Antony Clemente and several smokers arrested by virtue of the campaign is decided.

"[P]ending the determination of whether or not the respondent MMDA has valid authority to implement RA 9211, there is an obvious and imperative need for preliminary injunction, a provisional measure to prevent or restrain in the meantime the MMDA to implement its Smoking Ban in open areas not covered by the definition of public places in RA 9211 so that its implementation may not render moot and academic the main issue in this case," the order read.

Section 5 of RA No. 9211 "absolutely" prohibits smoking in the following public places:
a. Centers of youth activity such as playschools, preparatory schools, elementary schools, high schools, colleges and universities, youth hostels, and recreational facilities for persons under eighteen (18) years old;
b. Elevator and stairwells;
c. Location in which fire hazards are present, including gas stations and storage areas for flammable liquids, gas, explosives or combustible materials;
d. Within the buildings and premises of public and private hospitals. Medical, dental, and optical clinics, health centers, nursing homes, dispensaries and laboratories;
e. Public conveyance and public facilities including airport and ship terminals and train and bus stations, restaurant and conference halls, except for separate smoking areas; and
f. Food preparation areas.

The court stated that the bond in the amount of P100,000 earlier posted by petitioners for the temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by the court in August shall suffice as the bond for the injunctive writ.

The MMDA has recorded 8,427 violators, 7,878 of whom are male, and 549, female, as of September 21. In spite of the TRO, the MMDA continued the campaign arguing that the restraining order only barred the agency from apprehending violators in places not covered by RA No. 9211.

Violators were fined P500 on first offense while those who cannot afford to pay the fine were obliged to render an eight-hour community service.

Blood test 'could measure smokers' heart risk'

A blood test could be used to measure a smoker's danger of heart disease, researchers have found.

Levels of a lung protein found in the blood of smokers could indicate their risk of dangerous plaque build-up in blood vessels, according to a study published in journal Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

Researchers were able to determine the amount of circulating pulmonary surfactant B (SP-B), a protein which is found in damaged lung cells, in the study.

It was found that smokers who had higher levels of SP-B also had more build-up of dangerous plaque in the aorta.

"We now are close to having a blood test to help measure the smoking-related effects that contribute to atherosclerotic heart disease," said Dr Anand Rohatgi, co-lead author of the study.

"Smoking is one of the biggest contributors to the development of heart disease."

In other news, a study published in the American Journal of Cardiology has found that increasing the levels of high-density lipoproteins (HDL) cuts the risk of heart attack and stroke.