The following summary was posted on the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation website. If VIRGINIA can do it, I'd sure hope Wisconsin could do it (and with less exemptions)!
The Virginia House of Delegates on Monday approved sweeping legislation that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants in the state, the Washington Post reports. Currently, individual bars and restaurants in Virginia are permitted to enforce their own smoking restrictions. However, the new bill, which was revised several times before being approved, bans smoking in all restaurants and bars. Exceptions to the bill allow for smoking in outdoor patio areas, at restaurants during private functions that use the entire facility, and at clubs and bars when underage patrons are not admitted. In addition, the law would permit smoking in rooms that are separated by doors, regardless of whether the room has a separate ventilation system. Violations for noncompliance would result in a $25 fine, a figure that has drawn criticism from the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and other smoke-free policy proponents for being too lenient. If approved by the state Senate as expected, Virginia would become the first state in the south to institute a full smoking ban (Kumar, Washington Post, 2/10/09).
Friday, February 13, 2009
Cigarette Brand Preference Among Middle and High School Students Who are Established Smokers--United States, 2004 and 2006
The following summary appeared in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report MMWR News Synopsis for February 12, 2009
Research suggests that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotional activities play a role in influencing youth to start smoking. Knowing the cigarette brand preferences of student smokers, and the advertising and marketing used to promote these brands, provides vital information that can be incorporated into public health efforts to reduce youth smoking.
The three most heavily advertised brands--Marlboro, Newport, and Camel--continue to be the preferred brand of cigarettes smoked by middle and high school student smokers. According to this new study, 78 percent of middle school students and 87 percent of high school students prefer to smoke these three brands. The report found a considerable difference in brand preference among students by gender and ethnicity.
Marlboro is the preferred brand for middle and high school females (50 percent and 54 percent, respectively) compared to males (38 percent and 50 percent, respectively). The use of Camel was higher for middle school males (12 percent) than middle school females (4 percent). The report also found that black middle and high school students (60 percent and 79 percent, respectively) preferred Newport, a menthol cigarette that is strategically marketed to black communities.
Research suggests that exposure to tobacco advertising and promotional activities play a role in influencing youth to start smoking. Knowing the cigarette brand preferences of student smokers, and the advertising and marketing used to promote these brands, provides vital information that can be incorporated into public health efforts to reduce youth smoking.
The three most heavily advertised brands--Marlboro, Newport, and Camel--continue to be the preferred brand of cigarettes smoked by middle and high school student smokers. According to this new study, 78 percent of middle school students and 87 percent of high school students prefer to smoke these three brands. The report found a considerable difference in brand preference among students by gender and ethnicity.
Marlboro is the preferred brand for middle and high school females (50 percent and 54 percent, respectively) compared to males (38 percent and 50 percent, respectively). The use of Camel was higher for middle school males (12 percent) than middle school females (4 percent). The report also found that black middle and high school students (60 percent and 79 percent, respectively) preferred Newport, a menthol cigarette that is strategically marketed to black communities.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Cutting down the haze
It's time. The arguments against a comprehensive statewide smoking ban are hollow. Public health demands enactment.
an Editorial from www.jsonline.com Posted: Feb. 11, 2009
The state Legislature has shamefully dithered, and 37 Wisconsin communities now have some variation of a smoking ban. So, of course, bars and restaurants there have all boarded up their windows and gone bust.
Oh, right. They haven't.
In fact, some communities that were going to siphon off all the smokers' business after Madison went smoke free in 2005 have opted to copy their neighbor instead. That would be Monona, Middleton and Fitchburg.
This would seem to indicate that, far from reaping rewards from Madison's ban, these communities and their businesses saw some benefit from going smokeless.
State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), among others, notes the trend as he readies another smoking ban bill. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee), chairman of the health and health care committee, will introduce the Assembly version. They will introduce their bill at the end of the month.
Both houses should approve a comprehensive statewide ban. The governor has said he favors one.
One obstacle last year was Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston), who didn't let the bill come to the floor. The Senate's Democratic caucus should make it clear to their leader that being the obstacle again will be unacceptable.
It's time.
No doubt, the same resistance will surface from the tavern industry. Don't be distracted. This is not about the right of business owners to run their businesses as they please. It's about the right of employees to enjoy a safe work environment - not having to choose between a livelihood and health. And we should no more allow business owners to inflict smoke on employees and patrons than we would allow them to expose folks to asbestos or other harmful substances.
The bill, Risser and Richards say, will not allow exemptions and will impose a short transition period. This is as it should be.
The goal here should be public health, and there's scant room for compromise there.
an Editorial from www.jsonline.com Posted: Feb. 11, 2009
The state Legislature has shamefully dithered, and 37 Wisconsin communities now have some variation of a smoking ban. So, of course, bars and restaurants there have all boarded up their windows and gone bust.
Oh, right. They haven't.
In fact, some communities that were going to siphon off all the smokers' business after Madison went smoke free in 2005 have opted to copy their neighbor instead. That would be Monona, Middleton and Fitchburg.
This would seem to indicate that, far from reaping rewards from Madison's ban, these communities and their businesses saw some benefit from going smokeless.
State Sen. Fred Risser (D-Madison), among others, notes the trend as he readies another smoking ban bill. Rep. Jon Richards (D-Milwaukee), chairman of the health and health care committee, will introduce the Assembly version. They will introduce their bill at the end of the month.
Both houses should approve a comprehensive statewide ban. The governor has said he favors one.
One obstacle last year was Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston), who didn't let the bill come to the floor. The Senate's Democratic caucus should make it clear to their leader that being the obstacle again will be unacceptable.
It's time.
No doubt, the same resistance will surface from the tavern industry. Don't be distracted. This is not about the right of business owners to run their businesses as they please. It's about the right of employees to enjoy a safe work environment - not having to choose between a livelihood and health. And we should no more allow business owners to inflict smoke on employees and patrons than we would allow them to expose folks to asbestos or other harmful substances.
The bill, Risser and Richards say, will not allow exemptions and will impose a short transition period. This is as it should be.
The goal here should be public health, and there's scant room for compromise there.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Illegal to serve your youth, yep ESPECIALLY your own child!
This message was received by Julia Sherman, WI Clearinghouse
Colleagues: I have been receiving numerous inquiries abut SB 30 and the changes that would occur if enacted.
In brief, SB 30 would allow make it illegal to serve alcohol to anyone younger than age 18 even if with a parent. Practically speaking, it establishes age 18 as the age at which parents could start purchasing alcohol for children on bars and taverns.
I realize many underage drinking prevention advocates are conflicted by this proposal. For some, this proposal eliminates the insanity of a parent legally purchasing alcohol for very young children. While for others it raises concerns about creating a toehold in Wisconsin for those who wish to roll back the 21 minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) such as the Amethyst Initiative.
I spoke to Justin Sargent, Senator Robson’s aide working on this bill, last week. He was unaware of the Amethyst Initiative, a national effort to reopen the minimum legal drinking age debate, and said that it was Senator Robson’s hope this bill would help change the drinking culture of Wisconsin.
State sanctioning of alcohol use at age 18 alcohol will impact the attitudes of older teens. Legal access for 18 year old teens has the potential to provide more opportunities for younger teens to obtain alcohol, both troubling possibilities.
The evidence in support of an age 21 MLDA is overwhelming:
States that lowered the minimum legal drinking age [between 1970 and 1976] experienced a 15% to 20% increase in alcohol related teen car crashes.[i]
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the 21 minimum legal drinking age saves 1,000 lives each year on the highways. [ii]
When the MLDA is 21 underage youth drink less and continue to drink less into their early 20’s.[iii]
Medical research completed after the enactment of the age 21 MLDA support its importance. Medical research shows that brain development continues into the early 20’s. In addition, there is some question whether damage resulting from early alcohol use is reversible, testing of detoxified and comparable abstaining teens showed a significant reduction in the cognitive and analytical ability.[iv]
This bill is currently awaiting action in the Senate Committee on Children and Families and Workforce Development, chair
[i] 21 Turns 21, Driven, MADD 2004.
[ii] 21 Turns 21, Driven, MADD 2004.
[iii] O’Malley, PM , Wagenaar, A, Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. Journal Studies of Alcohol, 1991.
4. National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine, Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Richard J. Bonnie and Ellen O’Connell, editors. Washington, D.C.
Colleagues: I have been receiving numerous inquiries abut SB 30 and the changes that would occur if enacted.
In brief, SB 30 would allow make it illegal to serve alcohol to anyone younger than age 18 even if with a parent. Practically speaking, it establishes age 18 as the age at which parents could start purchasing alcohol for children on bars and taverns.
I realize many underage drinking prevention advocates are conflicted by this proposal. For some, this proposal eliminates the insanity of a parent legally purchasing alcohol for very young children. While for others it raises concerns about creating a toehold in Wisconsin for those who wish to roll back the 21 minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) such as the Amethyst Initiative.
I spoke to Justin Sargent, Senator Robson’s aide working on this bill, last week. He was unaware of the Amethyst Initiative, a national effort to reopen the minimum legal drinking age debate, and said that it was Senator Robson’s hope this bill would help change the drinking culture of Wisconsin.
State sanctioning of alcohol use at age 18 alcohol will impact the attitudes of older teens. Legal access for 18 year old teens has the potential to provide more opportunities for younger teens to obtain alcohol, both troubling possibilities.
The evidence in support of an age 21 MLDA is overwhelming:
States that lowered the minimum legal drinking age [between 1970 and 1976] experienced a 15% to 20% increase in alcohol related teen car crashes.[i]
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that the 21 minimum legal drinking age saves 1,000 lives each year on the highways. [ii]
When the MLDA is 21 underage youth drink less and continue to drink less into their early 20’s.[iii]
Medical research completed after the enactment of the age 21 MLDA support its importance. Medical research shows that brain development continues into the early 20’s. In addition, there is some question whether damage resulting from early alcohol use is reversible, testing of detoxified and comparable abstaining teens showed a significant reduction in the cognitive and analytical ability.[iv]
This bill is currently awaiting action in the Senate Committee on Children and Families and Workforce Development, chair
[i] 21 Turns 21, Driven, MADD 2004.
[ii] 21 Turns 21, Driven, MADD 2004.
[iii] O’Malley, PM , Wagenaar, A, Effects of minimum drinking age laws on alcohol use, related behaviors and traffic crash involvement among American youth: 1976-1987. Journal Studies of Alcohol, 1991.
4. National Academies of Science, Institute of Medicine, Reducing Underage Drinking: A Collective Responsibility. Richard J. Bonnie and Ellen O’Connell, editors. Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Minnesota's smoking ban remains popular
This info was broadcast on the Wisconsin Radio Network on Tuesday Feb 3. We are getting closer and closer to a smoke-free State!--emily
By Bob Hague
As Wisconsin lawmakers again prepare to grapple with the contentious issue of a statewide smoking ban, Minnesota's ban has been in place for nearly a year and a half.
Mike McGuire with the Minnesota chapter of the American Cancer Society says that state's Freedom to Breathe Act has been in place since October of 2007, and about 76% of state residents liked the law when it went into effect. Not that there hasn't been opposition. "We've seen a couple of amendments introduced to try to weaken the law," says McGuire. "Those amendments haven't really gone anywhere. There is a small but committed band of opponents who continue to advocate the repeal of the law."
McGuire says much of the opposition to a statewide ban in Wisconsin has a familiar ring. "Whether it's a local level ordinance or a statewide ordinance, there's always the prediction that the sky is going to fall," he says.
McGuire's advice to ban proponents in Wisconsin is to keep the focus on the health of workers who are being subjected to second hand smoke. Governor Jim Doyle once again called for a statewide ban, in his state of the state address.
By Bob Hague
As Wisconsin lawmakers again prepare to grapple with the contentious issue of a statewide smoking ban, Minnesota's ban has been in place for nearly a year and a half.
Mike McGuire with the Minnesota chapter of the American Cancer Society says that state's Freedom to Breathe Act has been in place since October of 2007, and about 76% of state residents liked the law when it went into effect. Not that there hasn't been opposition. "We've seen a couple of amendments introduced to try to weaken the law," says McGuire. "Those amendments haven't really gone anywhere. There is a small but committed band of opponents who continue to advocate the repeal of the law."
McGuire says much of the opposition to a statewide ban in Wisconsin has a familiar ring. "Whether it's a local level ordinance or a statewide ordinance, there's always the prediction that the sky is going to fall," he says.
McGuire's advice to ban proponents in Wisconsin is to keep the focus on the health of workers who are being subjected to second hand smoke. Governor Jim Doyle once again called for a statewide ban, in his state of the state address.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)