Big Tobacco launches legal fight with govt

The Gillard government's plea to Big Tobacco not to launch legal action against Labor's plain-packaging laws has fallen on deaf ears, with Philip Morris announcing it has already served notice of a dispute.

The federal parliament on Monday passed world-first laws that will force all cigarettes to be sold in drab olive-brown packs from December 2012.

Health Minister Nicola Roxon immediately demanded that Big Tobacco respect that mandate.
"We know that just as many smokers are addicted to tobacco and nicotine the tobacco companies are addicted to litigation," Ms Roxon told reporters in Canberra.

"But I call on them today to consider respecting the will of the parliament.

"Both houses, and all parties, have supported this legislation."

But less than an hour later, Philip Morris announced it had already begun legal proceedings using a bilateral investment treaty Australia signed with Hong Kong 20 years ago.

"The notice of arbitration was served on the government immediately following the passage of plain-packaging legislation for tobacco products by the Australian parliament," parent company Philip Morris Asia Limited said in a statement from Hong Kong where it's based.

Philip Morris forewarned the government of its plan in late June, when it entered a three-month mandatory negotiation period through the United Nations commission on international trade law.

The cigarette manufacturer argues the commonwealth is effectively planning to steal the company's brands in contravention of the investment treaty.

Philip Morris said on Monday that damages could run to billions of dollars and the legal process could take "two to three years".

"In passing the laws today, in our view, the government has breached an international treaty," Philip Morris spokesman Chris Argent told AAP.

"Plain packaging will damage the value of our brands and there are international business laws against that."

But legal experts believe things aren't that clear-cut.

A lawyer who's had more experience than most fighting cigarette companies in court, Peter Gordon, told AAP in late June that Philip Morris was actually on shaky ground.

Mr Gordon argued that the commonwealth wasn't taking away the property rights of tobacco companies but rather ensuring they weren't used to improperly promote cigarette use among kids.

At the same time, international law expert Don Anton noted that public regulation for a public purpose was not direct or indirect expropriation "and therefore is not prohibited by the investment treaty".

Philip Morris, like British American Tobacco Australia (BATA), also plans to launch domestic action in the High Court of Australia.

Ms Roxon was asked on Monday if legal action would delay the start of plain packaging.

"We don't believe that it needs to," she replied.

"(But) I'm not going to go through the legal ins and outs and possibilities as we potentially face litigation in lots of different forums."

Tobacco tax windfall should help smokers, Liberal leader says

In its reply Friday to the Speech from the Throne, the Liberals also called on the government to immediately reverse its decision to delay a hike in the minimum wage, abandon any plans to introduce a two-tiered wage system, and publicly disclose what cuts it is considering in the upcoming budget.

Interim Liberal Leader Victor Boudreau used his speech response in the Legislature to ask the Tories to support proposals the Liberals plan to present in the upcoming session.

That includes spending the extra $25 million in new revenue the Alward government found earlier this year by increasing the tobacco tax by 45 per cent.

"We know that chronic disease is one of the biggest contributors to the growing costs of health care," Boudreau said. "We propose this session that money raised by government through this tax be put towards the cost of a smoking cessation program for New Brunswickers addicted to nicotine.

"That investment would go a long way to helping reduce our costs for chronic health care."

Boudreau also called for full public disclosure of internal departmental reports that identify cuts to be considered for the upcoming budget, so New Brunswickers can have their say in how to balance the province's books.

"If you want New Brunswickers really involved in the budget process, make those reports public," Boudreau said. "Table them in the legislature before we break for Christmas."

The Shediac-Cap-Pelé MLA also reiterated calls for the immediate reversal of the Alward government's decision to delay the minimum wage increases. As well, the Liberals are calling on government to abandon its plans to introduce a two-tiered minimum wage system in New Brunswick.

For the second straight day, the Liberals also called for a special legislative committee tasked with consulting the public on shale gas development in the province.

The committee would host a series of public hearings and allow New Brunswickers to further weigh in on regulations the government brings to the table for shale gas development.

The Tories delivered its second speech from the throne since taking power earlier this week, pledging to continue to search for savings while growing the economy.

Alward's government also promised to begin reforming municipal government over the next two years - without forcing municipalities to merge - develop an action plan to improve access to family doctors and health clinics and make New Brunswick a leader in early childhood development.

Boudreau's speech on Friday also attacked the Tories at length for social service cuts that the Opposition believes have targeted the ordinary New Brunswicker.

"We understand that the recession hurt us. It hurt everybody," Boudreau said. "And while many places are actually far worse off than we are, we understand also that our province's deficit has to be trimmed. That means making some difficult decisions. We get that.

"But there's a smart way to do this. A way that focuses on job creation. A way that considers investments in things like education and training that will pay for themselves in the long run."

Indianapolis to consider stricter smoking ban

A new, enhanced smoking ban could be in place in time for the Super Bowl next year, one that bans smoking in all bars and bowling alleys, but the political maneuvering behind it has left some feeling snubbed.

City-County Council President Ryan Vaughn announced plans Tuesday to introduce a new ban to the council next month with the ordinance eligible for final passage on December 19, 2011.

The announcement caught several smoke-free advocates by surprise. The American Lung Association, Tobacco Free Kids, SmokeFree Indy and other organizations were planning a kick-off event Thursday to push for a tougher ban. Republican Councilor Ben Hunter and Democrat Angela Mansfield planned to introduce a stricter ordinance in early January, once Democrats took control of the council. They said there would be more support for a ban then and that the revised ordinance could still be in place for the Super Bowl.

But in a news release, Vaughn noted that state requires new regulations with penalties to be posted for 30 days prior to taking effect. He said the council had to act sooner in order for the ban to be effective when the city is hosting tens of thousands of visitors during Super Bowl XLVI.

Vaughn, however, never shared his intentions with the smoke-free advocates even though he was invited to the Thursday news conference. He did however, work with the mayor's office on his proposal. (The mayor was also invited to Thursday's event.)

Republican Mayor Greg Ballard has long opposed a stricter smoking ban, which came up during the 2011 mayoral race. The mayor just won re-election after fending off a challenge from Democrat Melina Kennedy, who supported a stronger ban. During a debate sponsored by WTHR, Indianapolis Star and The Indianapolis Recorder, the mayor, a former Marine, indicated he was open to compromise, as long as it didn't involve telling veterans that they couldn't smoke at their local VFW or American Legion post.

The city's current smoking ban has been in effect since 2005. The ordinance proposed by Vaughn would remove the exemption to the current smoking ban for hotel rooms, bars, restaurants serving only customers over the age of 21 and bowling alleys with the following exceptions:

Cigar/Hooka Bars: must annually generate $100,000 or 15% of gross revenue from tobacco products, only tobacco sold on site would be permitted to be consumed. Cigarette smoking would be prohibited in these establishments.

Retail Tobacco Business: whose primary business is the sale of tobacco products.

Not-for-profit private membership clubs: exempt from federal taxation and meets the definition of "private" or "fraternal" club under state statute.

Several Republican councilors have opposed a stricter ban, meaning Vaughn will likely need Democratic support to get his proposal passed.

Mayoral spokesman Marc Lotter said, the mayor would sign off on it if it reaches his desk, saying "it meets the criteria he laid out."

While Lotter insisted neither the Vaughn nor the Mayor's office went around or tried to upstage the smoke-free coalition, he did say Vaughn's was "a proposal we can get done."

Tobacco Free Kids and other smoke-free advocates endorsed Kennedy. Asked if that factored into beating them to the punch, Lotter said no, repeating, "it's a proposal we can get done."

A draft of the proposed ordinance will be available on the City-County Council website on Friday, December 2, 2011. If it passes the Republican-controlled Council and is signed into law by Mayor Ballard, the ordinance would take effect on January 22, 2012, two weeks prior to the Super Bowl.

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?