Tobacco news, articles and stories about smoking bans.

Tobacco news, comments and a little bit of history about cigarette smoking bans.

Independent newspaper reports, website material and government articles.

Recent story published in "Scotland on Sunday"

No butts, it's our liberty that's going up in smoke
By GERALD WARNER

TOMORROW is the first anniversary of the Scottish Executive's ban on smoking in pubs and restaurants: cue dancing in the streets. Not everybody will be dancing, however. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) has rained on the Executive's parade by revealing that 34% of publicans have had to sack staff as a consequence of the smoking ban, drink sales have fallen by 11%, and food (which was supposed to prosper under a ban) by 3%.

Such crassly commercial considerations cut no ice with health commissar Andy Kerr, who roundly declared there was no evidence the drop in staff was due to the smoking ban, though he did not offer any alternative explanation. That, you see, is the mystical gnosis of government: publicans think they know why they have laid off their staff, but they are deluded. It is reserved to the political magi, such as Kerr, to possess the inner knowledge of why these sackings really took place, on the ideological astral plane.

The crusade against smoking in bars began in New York (where else?) in 2003. It provoked a 10% loss in jobs, 17% among waiters and waitresses. Ireland imposed a nationwide ban in 2004. The Federation of Vintners in Ireland gloomily predicted 3,000 job losses. The forecast was wrong: 2,000 jobs were lost in Dublin alone and a further 7,000 across the rest of the country, while suppliers reported a 15 to 25% drop in sales.

So it was fatuous to imagine Scotland would somehow escape the consequences of a ban. Yet even the alarming figures from the SLTA do not reveal the full cost, since they exclude one of the hardest hit categories, registered social clubs. For example, the Coal Industry Social Work Organisation in Glenrothes, which sounds like a caricature construct of everything before which the Holyrood class warriors would genuflect, is losing 1,000 pounds a week as a result of the ban, with most of its customers over 60 years of age defecting. As yet unquantified is the effect on rural areas, where pub closures are inevitable. In the cities, it is pubs in poor localities, patronised by the left wing political parties' core supporters, that are suffering most. The helot vote has been ill rewarded.

The pretext for the ban was the health hazard of "passive smoking" by drinkers exposed to "environmental tobacco smoke" (ETS). Everyone agrees smoking is harmful to the individual inhaling; but the ETS hypothesis is as dubious as the claim that man-made CO2 produces climate change. Professor Robert Nilsson, a Swedish toxicologist, undertook a study which showed that non-smokers breathing in other people's tobacco smoke are consuming the equivalent of between one cigarette a week and two cigarettes a year.

Yet, in 1998, the UK government's Scientific Committee on Tobacco and Health (SCOTH), after admitting it did not know how many people were exposed to ETS, managed to conclude that "an estimate would suggest about several hundred extra lung cancer deaths a year are caused by passive smoking". In 2002 the British Medical Association rounded that figure up to 1,000; within 24 hours the anti-smoking pressure group ASH had inflated it to 10,000.

Also in 1998, the World Health Organisation (WHO) claimed that non-smokers consistently exposed to ETS ran a 16-17% increased risk of lung cancer. That sounded alarming; but the flaw was that the risk of a non-smoker contracting lung cancer had been estimated at 0.01%, so that a 17% increase on that miniscule figure meant the findings of this seven-year study were, as the WHO ruefully admitted, not "statistically significant". Professor Sir Richard Doll, who first discovered the link between primary smoking and lung cancer, has said: "The effects of other people smoking in my presence are so small it doesn't bother me."

The evidence of intellectual pygmies such as Doll, however, weighed as nothing in the balance against the inspired insights of MSPs, many of whom had sacrificed high-flying careers as municipal lamp lighters to serve the nation at Holyrood. Yet again, our devolved rulers have done the wrong thing and damaged Scotland in the process. As usual, they are trying to generate an atmosphere of universal acquiescence in a tyrannical act. The public should be reminded that this "reform" is predicated upon false science and has been implemented by coercion. Meanwhile, in all jurisdictions where smoking bans have been imposed, statisticians report the death rate as holding steady, at 100%.

What is at issue here is not any improvement in the environment of pubs: that should have been freely negotiated between publicans and customers. It is the relentless aggression of the intruder state against personal freedoms, which deserve to be maintained at the cost of some discomfort to ourselves, if we happen to be non-smokers.

The notion that, post Thatcher, the boundaries of the state have been rolled back is a delusion. Industry is no longer in public ownership; but a schoolgirl can undergo a state assisted abortion without the knowledge of her parents. Freedom of speech is now, thanks to politically correct gagging legislation, an historical memory. Equality under the law has been reversed, with the doctrine of offences conferring a privileged status upon certain minority groups, as was enjoyed by post Conquest Norman nobles until the Magna Carta. Under the pretext of anti terrorism vigilance, unprecedentedly intrusive measures, including retention of personal DNA, are being implemented.

Now the Leviathan of the state is poised for the most aggressive and all embracing assault on personal liberties ever conceived, under the banner of combating supposedly man made climate change. In this darkening landscape, the pathetic figure of the excluded smoker courting pneumonia outside a public house, in pursuit of a modest pleasure, becomes an icon of lost liberty. It is precisely because the freedom to smoke is such a small thing that its prohibition is so significant. When the state has leisure to snuff out our trivial indulgences, it signals it has already occupied all the commanding heights of our formerly free society.

Modern governments behaving like Nazi Germany?
Very interesting article follows.

Fact. Did you know, the three leading facist leaders (Benito Mussolini, Franco and Adolf Hitler) all abstained from tobacco and smoking?

Hitler himself detested tobacco, which he called "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man, vengeance for having been given hard liquor." But the antismoking campaign reflected "a national political climate stressing the virtues of racial hygiene and bodily purity" as well as the Fuhrer's personal prejudices. The same could be said of Nazi efforts to discourage drinking and encourage a better diet.

The state performer in anti smoking propaganda was Adolf Hitler. As one magazine put it, "brother national socialist, do you know that our Fuhrer is against smoking and think that every German is responsible to the whole people for all his deeds and emissions, and does not have the right to damage his body with drugs?"

"Robert Proctor presents evidence that the nazis' exerted massive control over most facets of ordinary citizen's lives. Yet somehow, he never reaches the obvious conclusion that such compulsive regulations, even if arguably well intentioned, ultimately lead to a large scale sacrifice of basic freedoms. He explains how the nazis greatly restricted tobacco advertising, banned smoking in most public buildings, increasingly restricted and regulated tobacco farmers growing abilities, and engaged in a sophisticated anti-smoking public relations campaign. (Suing tobacco companies for announced consequences was a stunt that mysteriously eluded Hitler's thugs.) Despite the frightening parallels to the current war on tobacco, Mr. Proctor never even hints at the analogy. Curiously, he seems to take an approach that such alleged concern for public health shows nazism to be a more complex dogma than commonly presumed. While nothing present in the book betokens even a trace of sympathy for the Third Reich, this viewpoint seems incredibly naive. It's easy to wonder if Hitler and company were truly concerned with promoting public health. The unquenchable lust for absolute control is a far more believable motive.

Incongruously some of the book's desultory details lend further certitude to its unpromulgated thesis. Hitler not only abstained from tobacco, he also never drank and was, for the most part a vegetarian. Frighteningly he also was an animal rights activist. The book reruns a nazi-era cartoon depicting many liberated lab animals giving the nazi salute to Hermann Goring after he outlawed animal experimentation and promised to send violators to a concentration camp. Also included is a fitting quote now too widely suppressed from Joseph Goebbles, "the fuhrer is deeply religious, though completely anti Christian, he views Christianity as a symptom of decay." Controversial as it may be in some circles, such a quote proves that nazism viewed Christianity as hatefully as it did Judaism. Passing coverage is given to the Third Reich's forays into euthanasia and eugenics. Another striking morsel is the reporting of a widespread nazi-era whispered joke "What is the ideal German? Blond like Hitler. Slim like Goring. Masculine like Goebbles..." implying that Gautlier Goebble's homosexuality was common knowledge. Nazi linguistic restrictions seem to be the counterpart of modern day hate speech. Words such as "catastrophe," "sabotage," and "assassination" were to be avoided, and in a portentous move, "cripple" was replaced by "handicapped". Proctor also suggests the word "enlightenment" (was) probably used more in the nazi period than at any other time

Perhaps the ultimate overlooked point of this work is the suggestion that Adolph Hitler with his anti tobacco, anti religion, pro animal rights, pro government intrusion would find success as a modern day liberal." source, Steve Fantina.

In Nazi Germany, for instance, abstinence from tobacco was a "national socialist duty" (Hitler gave a gold watch to associates who quit the habit, though this didn't stop them lighting up in the Berlin bunker once they heard the Fuhrer had committed suicide). Armed with such senior sanction, loyally, Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler banned SS men from smoking, though not shooting, on duty, and Propaganda Minister Joseph Gobbels was obliged to hide his ciggie whenever he was filmed, anti tobacco activists succeeded in banning smoking from government offices, civic transport, university campuses, rest homes, post offices, many restaurants and bars, hospital grounds and workplaces. Tobacco taxes were raised, unsupervised cigarette vending machines were banned, and there were calls for a ban on smoking while driving.

Thanks to the Ministry of Science and Education, and the Reich Health Office, posters were produced depicting smoking as the typically despicable habit of Jews, jazz musicians, Gypsies, Indians, homosexuals, blacks, communists, capitalists, cripples, intellectuals and harlots. Zealous lobbyists descended into the schools, terrifying children with tales of impotence and racial impurity.

One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel, upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco free Germany enthusiast, liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase "passive smoking" (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100 page Tabak und Organismus ("Tobacco and the Organism"), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

If some of these measures appear familiar today, then consider the rules laid down in 1941 regarding tobacco advertising. "Images that create the impression that smoking is a sign of masculinity are barred, as are images depicting men engaged in activities attractive to youthful males (athletes or pilots, for example)," and "may not be directed at sportsmen or automobile drivers," while "advocates of tobacco abstinence or temperance must not be mocked." Advertisements were banned from films, billboards, posters and "the text sections of journals and newspapers." Nevertheless, even the Nazis couldn't equal the recent ban on smoking on death row, meaning prisoners about to undergo massive electric shocks are forbidden from indulging in "one last drag", talk about cruel and unusual punishment.

This great crusade, propagated through a remarkable network of lectures, re-education programs and congresses, was backed up by the medical and health establishment for the sake of "science." Or at least a certain type of junk science, one in which objective research and the scientific method was subordinated to, and bastardized for the sake of, a greater political program. Thus, it was commonly touted by scientists and racial hygienists that smoking caused "spontaneous abortions", a clearly demonstrable fallacy, but one requiring official promotion in order to ensure a high birth rate for Aryan women. (Source, Anti tobacco Gestapo, past and present)

Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti tobacco movement. Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking in public spaces, bans on advertising,restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti tobacco campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also motivated many other public health efforts of the era.

Medical historians in recent years have done a great deal to enlarge our understanding of medicine and public health in Nazi Germany. We know that about half of all doctors joined the Nazi party and that doctors played a major part in designing and administering the Nazi programmes of forcible sterilisation, "euthanasia," and the industrial scale murder of Jews and gypsies.(1) (2) Much of our present day concern for the abuse of humans used in experiments stems from the extreme brutality many German doctors showed towards concentration camp prisoners exploited to advance the cause of German military medicine.(3)

Tobacco in the Reich
One topic that has only recently begun to attract attention is the Nazi anti tobacco movement.(4-6) Germany had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,supported by Nazi medical and military leaders worried that tobacco might prove a hazard to the race.(1) (4)Many Nazi leaders were vocal opponents of smoking. Anti-tobacco activists pointed out that whereas Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt were all fond of tobacco, the three major fascist leaders of Europe, Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco-were all non-smokers.(7) Hitler was the most adamant, characterising tobacco as "the wrath of the Red Man against the White Man for having been given hard liquor." At one point the Fuhrer even suggested that Nazism might never have triumphed in Germany had he not given up smoking.(8)

German smoking rates rose dramatically in the first six years of Nazi rule, suggesting that the propaganda campaign launched during those early years was largely ineffective.(4) (5) German smoking rates rose faster even than those of France, which had a much weaker anti tobacco campaign. German per capita tobacco use between 1932 and 1939 rose from 570 to 900 cigarettes a year, whereas French tobacco consumption grew from 570 to only 630 cigarettes over the same period.(9)

Smith et al suggested that smoking may have functioned as a kind of cultural resistance,(4) though it is also important to realise that German tobacco companies exercised a great deal of economic and political power, as they do today. German anti tobacco activists frequently complained that their efforts were no match for the "American style" advertising campaigns waged by the tobacco industry.(10) German cigarette manufacturers neutralised early criticism, for example, from the SA(Sturm-Abteilung, stormtroops), which manufactured its own "Sturmzigaretten" by portraying themselves as early and eager supporters of the regime.(11) The tobacco industry also launched several new journals aimed at countering anti tobacco propaganda. In a pattern that would become familiar in the United States and elsewhere after the second world war, several of these journals tried to dismiss the anti tobacco movement as "fanatic" and "unscientific." One such journal featured the German word for science twice in its title (Der Tabak: Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der International en Tabakwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft, founded in 1940)

We should also realise that tobacco provided an important source of revenue for the national treasury. In 1937-8 German national income from tobacco taxes and tariffs exceeded 1 billion Reichsmarks.(12) By 1941, as a result of new taxes and the annexation of Austria and Bohemia, Germans were paying nearly twice that. According to Germany's national accounting office, by 1941 tobacco taxes constituted about one twelfth of the government's entire income.(13) Two hundred thousand Germans were said to owe their livelihood to tobacco-an argument that was reversed by those who pointed to Germany's need for additional men in its labour force, men who could presumably be supplied from the tobacco industry.(14)

Culmination of the campaign, 1939-41
German anti tobacco policies accelerated towards the end of the 1930s, and by the early war years tobacco use had begun to decline. The Luftwaffe banned smoking in 1938 and the post office did likewise. Smoking was barred in many workplaces, government offices, hospitals, and rest homes. The NSDAP (National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) announced a ban on smoking in its offices in 1939, at which time SS chief Heinrich Himmler announced a smoking ban for all uniformed police and SS officers while on duty.(15) The Journal of the American Medical Association that year reported Hermann Goering's decree barring soldiers from smoking on the streets, on marches, and on brief off duty periods.(16) Sixty of Germany's largest cities banned smoking on street cars in 1941.(17) Smoking was banned in air raid shelters, though some shelters reserved separate rooms for smokers.(18) During the war years tobacco rationing coupons were denied to pregnant women (and to all women below the age of 25) while restaurants and cafes were barred from selling cigarettes to female customers.(19) From July 1943 it was illegal for anyone under the age of 18 to smoke in public.(20) Smoking was banned on all German city trains and buses in 1944, the initiative coming from Hitler himself,who was worried about exposure of young female conductors to tobacco smoke.(21) Nazi policies were heralded as marking "the beginning of the end" of tobacco use in Germany.(14) German tobacco epidemiology by this time was the most advanced in the world. Franz H Muller in 1939 and Eberhard Schairer and Erich Schoniger in 1943 were the first to use case control epidemiological methods to document the lung cancer hazard from cigarettes.(22) (23) Muller concluded that the "extraordinary rise in tobacco use" was "the single most important cause of the rising incidence of lung cancer."(22) Heart disease was another focus and was not infrequently said to be the most serious illness brought on by smoking.(24) Late in the war nicotine was suspected as a cause of the coronary heart failure suffered by a surprising number of soldiers on the eastern front. A 1944 report by an army field pathologist found that all 32 young soldiers whom he had examined after death from heart attack on the front had been "enthusiastic smokers." The author cited the Freiburg pathologist Franz Buchner's view that cigarettes should be considered "a coronary poison of the first order."(25)

On 20 June 1940 Hitler ordered tobacco rations to be distributed to the military "in a manner that would dissuade" soldiers from smoking.(24) Cigarette rations were limited to six per man per day, with alternative rations available for non smokers (for example, chocolate or extra food). Extra cigarettes were sometimes available for purchase, but these were generally limited to 50 per man per month and were often unavailable, as during times of rapid advance or retreat. Tobacco rations were denied to women accompanying the Wehrmacht. An ordinance on 3 November 1941 raised tobacco taxes to a higher level than they had ever been (80-95% of the retail price). Tobacco taxes would not rise that high again for more than a quarter of a century after Hitler's defeat.(26)

Impact of the war and postwar poverty
The net effect of these and other measures (for instance, medical lectures to discourage soldiers from smoking) was to lower tobacco consumption by the military during the war years. A 1944 survey of 1000 servicemen found that, whereas the proportion of soldiers smoking had increased (only 12.7% were non-smokers), the total consumption of tobacco had decreased-by just over 14%. More men were smoking (101 of those surveyed had taken up the habit during the war, whereas only seven had given it up) but the average soldier was smoking about a quarter (23.4%) less tobacco than in the immediate prewar period. The number of very heavy smokers (30 or more cigarettes daily) was down dramatically-from 4.4% to only 0.3%-and similar declines were recorded for moderately heavy smokers.(24)

Postwar poverty further cut consumption. According to official statistics German tobacco use did not reach prewar levels again until the mid 1950s. The collapse was dramatic, German per capita consumption dropped by more than half from 1940 to 1950, whereas American consumption nearly doubled during that period.(6) (9) French consumption also rose, though during the four years of German occupation cigarette consumption declined by even more than in Germany(9) suggesting that military conquest had a larger effect than Nazi propaganda.

After the war Germany lost its position as home to the world's most aggressive anti tobacco science. Hitler was dead but also many of his anti tobacco underlings either had lost their jobs or were otherwise silenced. Karl Aster, head of Jena's Institute for Tobacco Hazards Research (and rector of the University of Jena and an officer in the SS), committed suicide in his office on the night of 3-4 April 1945.Reich Health Fuhrer Leonardo Conti, another anti tobacco activist, committed suicide on 6 October 1945 in an allied prison while awaiting prosecution for his role in the euthanasia programme. Hans Reiter, the Reich Health Office president who once characterised nicotine as "the enemy of the people's health" and "the number one drag on the German economy"(27) was interned in an American prison camp for two years, after which he worked as a physician in a clinic in Kassel, never again returning to public service. Gauleiter Fritz Sauckel, the guiding light behind Thuringia's antismoking campaign and the man who drafted the grant application for Astel's anti-tobacco institute, was executed on 1 October 1946 for crimes against humanity. It is hardly surprising that much of the wind was taken out of the sails of Germany's anti-tobacco movement.

The flip side of Fascism Smith et al were correct to emphasise the strength of the Nazi anti smoking effort and the sophistication of Nazi era tobacco science.(4) The anti smoking science and policies of the era have not attracted much attention, possibly because the impulse behind the movement was closely attached to the larger Nazi movement.That does not mean, however, that anti smoking movements are inherently fascist(28) it means simply that scientific memories are often clouded by the celebrations of victors and that the political history of science is occasionally less pleasant than we would wish.

Thanks for this article to, United States Holocaust Memorial Museum,Washington, DC; Hamburger Institut fur Sozialforschung in Hamburg.

Department of History,
Pennsylvania State University,
University Park,
PA 16802,
United States of America.

Plan to ban smoking while driving lights fire under smokers
Published in the Asbury Park Press 07/9/05
BY ROB JENNINGS. GANNETT. NEW JERSEY
Two state lawmakers want to make it illegal to drive a car while smoking, a seemingly long shot proposal that extends the tobacco debate from public places into privately owned automobiles.

The bill, A4306, introduced on June 27, would stipulate up to a $250 fine for smoking while driving. It would be a secondary offense enforced only if a motorist had been pulled over for a separate traffic violation or other offense.
The proposed ban is lighting a fire under smokers.
"It's my car. I own it. Next time, will they come into my house? What's the difference," said Eileen Gilchrist while taking a smoke break from her job in Dover last week.

There are no states that prohibit drivers from smoking inside their own vehicles, according to Action on Smoking and Health in Washington, D.C. although lawmakers in Germany began weighing a nationwide ban two months ago.
Assemblyman John F. McKeon, D-Essex, said his bill would promote safety. He did not cite any studies linking smoking to a heightened risk of car accidents.

Jefferson Police Sgt. Eric Wilsusen, a 20 year veteran, said he couldn't recall a single accident attributed to smoking by the driver.

McKeon, 47, who also is mayor of West Orange, acknowledged that his primary goal is "to bring focus to the ravages of tobacco."
"This is just another in a series of legislation to see what we can do to curtail the use of tobacco," said McKeon, whose father died of smoking related emphysema two years ago.

The bill's co sponsor, Loretta Weinberg, D Bergen, introduced the New Jersey Smoke Free Air Act, a proposal to prohibit smoking in indoor public places and in workplaces that would be similar to the New York law in January. The bill has not yet come to a vote.

Weinberg said she agreed to back a smoking while driving ban after McKeon broached the idea, even though she does not believe that it will become law.

"I know there are people who will consider this kind of silly," Weinberg said.

Las Vegas worries over Hotel, Motel smoking ban.
Nevada voters could be asked in November whether they want to ban smoking in hotel and motel rooms, restaurants, supermarkets, convenience stores and bars.
A separate business-backed initiative will allow voters to choose a less restrictive ban on smoking, including in areas of bars and restaurants where children are allowed.
Neither of the ballot questions would outlaw smoking on a casino floor.
The more restrictive measure, being proposed by Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids, would make Nevada the first state in the country to prohibit smoking in all hotel and motel rooms, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights said.
Nevada now ranks as the worst state in the nation for protecting nonsmokers, said Bronson Frick, the organization's associate director. With passage of the ballot question, Nevada would be among the best states for nonsmokers rights, he said.
Most of the big casino companies are taking a wait-and-see approach to the matter.
"We have no formal position on either initiative. We'll let the voters decide which measure they prefer," said Lesley Pittman, Station Casinos' vice president of government relations.
Banning smoking in hotel rooms would give the operators of Red Rock Resort some cause for concern.
"That would be a problem for us," Pittman said. The company, which operates 3,661 hotel rooms in Southern Nevada, offers guests the choice of smoking or nonsmoking rooms.
MGM Mirage spokesman Alan Feldman, whose company operates 10 of the Strip's largest resorts comprising 36,425 guest rooms, said hotel floors at each property are designated as nonsmoking floors. He could not give a percentage for the number of nonsmoking rooms the company operates because it varies by property.
Banning smoking in hotel rooms would be a concern to the gaming industry giant.
"I think when you reach into a private area, such as hotel rooms, you are starting down a very slippery slope," Feldman said. "The public will decide what it clearly wants, but it seems (banning smoking in guest rooms) is not something that would be very popular."
Feldman said MGM Mirage has increased the number of nonsmoking rooms it offers over the past decade. Several are nonsmoking while others provide nonsmoking sections. Designated areas of the casino floors are set aside for nonsmoking patrons.
Most of the major poker rooms in Las Vegas are now smoke-free.
Feldman said banning smoking in hotel rooms might send the wrong message.
"Las Vegas is a place about letting your hair down and being yourself in whatever form," he said.
Michael Hackett, campaign manager for Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids, said it was not his group's intention to include hotel and motel rooms in the ban.
But in reviewing language in the ballot question, District Judge Bill Maddox determined that a hotel or a motel is a place of business, not a private residence, and the smoking ban should apply to their rooms.
On Monday, Maddox rejected a request from gaming companies, hotels and convenience stores to remove the Nevadans for Tobacco-Free Kids' petition from the November ballot.
Sponsors of the tough anti-smoking ballot question said Tuesday they have not decided whether to appeal the decision to allow Nevada voters to decide whether to ban smoking in all hotel and motel rooms.
"It was not what we expected, but it is not going to impair our ability to go forward," Hackett said. "The ruling was a big victory for us."
Lee Haney, a spokeswoman for gaming companies, motels and hotels, convenience stores and other businesses that wanted Maddox to throw out the ballot question, said her organizations will decide within two weeks whether to appeal the decision.
But she added the ruling placing hotel and motel rooms within the smoking ban will lead voters to defeat the ballot question.
"We think people realize the economic detriment that it would cause," Haney said.
Keith Schwer, director for the center of business and economic at research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, agreed that the gaming industry could incur some added costs if smoking were banned in hotel rooms.
Studies have not been undertaken on the matter, but Schwer surmised that any customers who avoid Las Vegas because of a ban on smoking in hotel rooms would have to be replaced by nonsmoking guests.
"You're going to have spend some money to market that room to someone else and get it filled, thus, avoiding any reduction in revenue," Schwer said. "So, it seems the answer is that if you lose people because smoking is banned, it will cost you more to replace them."
Last year, the off-Strip Westin banned smoking in its public areas, including hotel rooms, the lobby, meeting areas and restaurants. Several gaming tables near the lobby went smoke-free. The move was part of a ban on smoking at more than 70 Westin hotels and resorts in North America.
David Schwartz, who coordinates UNLV's gaming studies research center, said nonsmoking hotel rooms might be a national trend that will be hard to halt.
He said he found an historical similarity from the late 1960s when smoking was banned in movie theaters. People, at the time, thought the move would make movie theaters obsolete.
"More and more, smoking is being outlawed indoors," Schwartz said.
Herbst Gaming -- a supplier of slot machines to convenience stores, bars, supermarkets and taverns -- is part of the coalition backing a ballot initiative that is less restrictive. General counsel Sean Higgins said the more stringent proposal would hurt businesses and could hamper a thriving economy.
With his brothers, Higgins operates Three Angry Wives, a tavern in the Boca Park Shopping Center near Summerlin. The restaurant portion is nonsmoking, Higgins said, but smoking is permitted in the bar, lounge and gaming areas.
"Responsible business owners will do the right things for their customers," Higgins said. "That's why we think our initiative is a more responsible approach."
Some casino patrons believe the current laws are just fine.
Gregory Hinds, who owns several homes in Las Vegas but also lives part-time in Oregon, said any smoking ban could affect his decision on where he goes to eat and gamble.
"I don't think there should be some stringent rules about smoking and drinking in Las Vegas," Hinds said while playing a video slot machine at Red Rock Resort. "This isn't the Bay Area, and it isn't San Diego."
Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority spokesman Vince Alberta said the tourism agency was not taking a position on either initiative.

Pro-smoking lobby decries "hysterical" ban

By Helen Nugent, timesonline.co.uk, September 25, 2004
SOME of Britains leading artists, playwrights and entrepreneurs have launched a fierce attack on the Government over plans to introduce a ban on smoking in public places.
Celebrity supporters of the pro smoking lobby say that there is a "climate of hysteria" around the issue of smoking in public and that the risks of passive smoking have been exaggerated.
In a letter to The Times, a host of well known names including the actor and writer Stephen Fry, Bob Geldof, the pop music entrepreneur Simon Cowell and the artists David Hockney and Maggi Hambling, called on the Government to "de-escalate the tension on this issue".
They said. "To smoke, to associate with smokers, or to operate a venue in which smoking is allowed should all be matters for individual choice. Smoking is legal, and in pubs and clubs, it is fanatical smoke haters who are the minority."
John Reid, the Health Secretary, confirmed this week that the Government will introduce laws restricting smoking in public places.
Although officials emphasised that no decision had been made, the Governments White Paper on public health to be published this autumn is likely to propose legislation against smoking in pubs, restaurants and workplaces.
The musician Joe Jackson, who signed todays letter, said that anti smoking groups represented a "fanatical fringe".
He said, "There are those of us who are sick and tired of being abused for indulging in a legal pleasure. We feel that a smoking ban is unjustified, David Hockney said to me that people are like sheep and follow whoever shouts loudest. So we are going to make some noise too."
Other signatories are Trevor Bayliss, who brought the world the clockwork radio, Felix Dennis, the magazine magnate, the playwrights Simon Gray and Ronald Harwood and the celebrity chef Antony Worrall Thompson.

Follow up to this article..

Supporters put case for smoking From Mr Joe Jackson and others
Sir, We would like to raise our voices against calls to ban smoking in pubs, clubs and restaurants. Claims that the US hospitality industry is doing better since the New York ban was introduced are based on the recovery of the whole city economy since 911, and by including everything from McDonalds to liquor stores. But in bars and clubs the ban is widely hated.
According to a new independent survey of its first year, it has also cost 2,650 jobs, $50 million in earnings and $71.5 million to related businesses. Claims that the Irish ban is a success after six months are equally dubious, considering that anyone defying it faces fines of EURO 3,000 or three months in prison.
Many people believe that the dangers of smoking and passive smoking are currently being exaggerated to the point of hysteria. The risks of passive smoke have never been proven beyond meaningless levels in a small minority of studies, wildly varying "estimates" of hundreds or thousands of deaths are based not on body counts but statistical projections.
To smoke, to associate with smokers, or to operate a venue in which smoking is allowed should all be matters for individual choice, not state coercion. Smoking is legal, and in pubs and clubs it is fanatical smoke haters who are the minority. Nevertheless the hospitality industry is making great progress in voluntarily providing better air cleaning systems and more choice.
We call on both government and the media to de escalate the tension on this issue and let common sense and the free market decide the future of British social life.

Yours faithfully,
JOE JACKSON,
TREVOR BAYLIS,
SIMON COWELL,
FELIX DENNIS,
STEPHEN FRY,
BOB GELDOF,
SIMON GRAY,
MAGGI HAMBLING,
RONALD HARWOOD,
DAVID HOCKNEY,
BORIS JOHNSON,
LISA STANSFIELD,
CHRIS TARRANT,
ANTONY WORRALL THOMPSON,
c/o 15 Eccleston Street,
London SW1W 9LX.
boisdale@hotmail.com
September 24.

USA. Where are my nonsmokers that the city promised me?

July 20, 2005
MADISON, Wis. Some Madison tavern owners say their revenues are going up in smoke because of the citys new smoking ban in bars and restaurants.
The city ordinance took effect July 1, with Madison joining about 20 other Wisconsin cities with some kind of ban on smoking.
The move created a firestorm of controversy, with smokers accusing the City Council of trying to run their lives. A faction of aldermen already wants to repeal the ban, and Republican legislators are trying to pass a bill to water down local ordinances statewide.
"It's terrible, absolutely terrible," said Cal Beecher, owner of the Tip Top Tavern. "I have been here 32 years. Its going to close me down."
Terry Olson, co owner of Ole N Ricks North Side Inn in Madison, said business is down 60 percent and he started cutting back shifts for three or four bartenders Monday.
"If we can't make it with that, we will have to lay somebody off," he said.
Owners said blue collar bars on the citys east side are being especially hard hit by the new rules. First time violators face up to $125 in fines if they dont quit or leave. A second offense carries a maximum $500 fine.
Ryan Eisenhut of Cottage Grove said he used to hit Madison bars at least three times a week on his way home from work. On Wednesday, he was at Tullys II in Monona.
No fun anymore
"The downtown bars are fun, but not anymore. The fact that they dont have smoking now, I wont go there," he said. "Wait until its 10 below and they try to get people out there in the parking lot to smoke."
Patty Telvick, general manager of the Buckeye Inn, said her regulars have disappeared and nonsmokers have not taken their place.
"Where are my nonsmokers that the city promised me?" Telvick said.
Dave Wiganowsky, owner of Wiggies, said nonsmokers do not spend enough to make up for the loss of customers.
"We had two nonsmokers," Wiganowsky said. They bought two cans of pop and said, "Isnt this wonderful?" and walked out. "That wont pay the light bill". Meanwhile, bars just outside Madison are reporting an increase in customers.
In Fitchburg, Monkeyshines has "picked up quite a few customers," said day manager Jason Cushman.

We saved the best one for last...... Unbelievable, but true.
See a Smoker in a Non Smoking Area? Call 911

Kate Monaghan, CNSNews.com, October 19 2006
If you catch someone smoking in a non smoking area in Omaha, Nebraska, call the police. The Omaha Police Department is encouraging city residents to call 911 in the wake of the citywide ban on smoking that went into effect on Oct. 2.
Teresa Negron, sergeant in charge of public information of the OPD, explained that the department encourages observers of infractions to pick up the phone to report the infraction.... just like they would for any other crime they observe being committed.
"Citizens or business owners that observe a violation to the smoking ban are urged to call 911 and report the violation," Negron told Cybercast News Service. "It is like any other crime that happens in any city, if somebody sees a crime happen, they can call 911 and report it."
Negron did not necessarily endorse immediately calling 911 but still saw it as a viable option.
"What I would recommend for people to do is bring it to the attention of the management, and if that does not stop, then obviously contact us, and we will respond and we will handle it," she said.
However, the calls are not high priority.
"The first week, we had maybe 10 calls in the entire city," said Negron. "Calls concerning the smoking ban were not high priority calls, so we have a system in place that calls that come in and have a higher priority will be handled."
The penalty is a citation and fee for individuals caught violating the ban, $100 for the first offense, $200 for the second and $500 for the third and subsequent offenses, according to a summary of the city ordinance posted online.
"Obviously, they would receive a citation for violating the smoking ordinance," said Negron.
According to some, however, the new law will encourage people to become "snitches."
"I think that it is one thing for people to monitor themselves," said Amy Kauffman, research fellow for the Hudson Institute. "It is another thing to ask people to monitor their friends, neighbors and cohorts. It is turning people into snitches."
Kauffman called this "a horrible thing" and a waste of city resources.
"To use 911 for this purpose goes against what 911 is designated for. It is an emergency service. These are not emergencies," Kauffman said.
She further classified the situation as over the top.
"To take 911, which is supposed to respond to someone within I guess one to three minutes, and use it for this and to clog the lines with busybodies phoning in on their neighbors is ridiculous."
Mark Welsch, president of the Group to Alleviate Smoking Pollution (GASP) of Nebraska, disagrees.
"It is not an over reaction, it is a good use of our city resources" that are being squandered on smokers, according to Welsch.
"I think about 13 percent of our total Medicaid expenses are caused by tobacco," Welsch said. "So, I'm paying too much. I do not want to subsidize tobacco use in my state. We should have just enough to break even. For next year, we would have to raise the tobacco tax by about 50 cents per pack, just to break even."
Smoking is not the only problem that needs fixing to trim down the costs, Welsch said. There is also a problem with food consumption that needs attention.
"We are such a fat country, by and large. Somebody needs to do something, or our Medicaid and Medicare costs are just going to continue to go up and up, not just because of smoking, but because of people being overweight and too lethargic to take their butts outside and walk," said Welsch.
Kauffman noted that smoking is not good for your health but insisted that 911 calls are not the answer.
"Smoking has been proven to be bad for ones health," she said. "But I really think that sometimes, these people go a little bit too far. It is a trend, but this is different because not only is it a trend where they are saying "no smoking," but now they are asking people to actually phone in and report other people."