Tobacco.org

• Bill would restrict efforts by cities, counties to ban smoking 

A Springfield, Mo., legislator is proposing to prohibit Missouri cities and counties from banning smoking in establishments where at least 60 percent of retail sales come from alcohol, tobacco or entertainment.

The legislation, if passed, would mean that many more bars, bowling alleys, bingo halls, billiard parlors and movie theaters, among other businesses, could be exempted from smoke-free ordinances. Casinos would fall into that category.

Restaurants probably would not be affected, said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Melissa Leach, R-Springfield.

The bill will be heard today by the House Small Business Committee.

Jump to full article »

Bill Information for SB 485 (2011-2012)  

LETTER: To Sen. Crain: Don’t kill this bill 

Smoking bill erupts in battle at the Capitol  

• PEARSON: Big Tobacco wins again 

A few weeks ago on this page, I wondered whether or not the "love fest" between Oklahoma lawmakers and the tobacco industry would continue this session.

Well, we have an answer: YES! Even in the face of close scrutiny and harsh criticism, a Senate committee has seen to it that cities in Oklahoma will not be able to enact stronger tobacco controls than allowed by state law. That means the tobacco industry can continue to concentrate all its plentiful lobbying resources in one place - the state Legislature - rather than have to deal with dozens of local governments that might care more about their own constituents than some well-compensated lobbyists. (Goodness knows the industry has the money to spend; according to one estimate, Big Tobacco spends a million dollars an hour to market its products.)

In fairness, there was a chance that the local-control legislation might have passed this year. One version made it out of the House and it's possible the Senate also might have passed a measure. But state Sen. Brian Crain, R-Tulsa, would not let the bill come up in his Health and Human Services Committee. "If we're going to ban smoking, let's debate that issue rather than do it piece by piece," he said. . . .

In summary, the surgeon general concluded that the "establishment of smoke-free public and workplace environments; and statewide, community-wide and school-based programs and policies are effective in reducing the initiation, prevalence and intensity of smoking among youth and young adults."

So in other words, if Oklahoma leaders would pave the way for stronger tobacco-control policies at the local level - which has been done in 48 other states - then there's a very good change lots of Oklahoma teens would never take up the deadly habit, and would live much longer, healthier, happier lives.

Lawmakers still have the ability to resurrect a local-control measure. But rather than look out for the future of Oklahoma's young people, some lawmakers appear to be looking out for the future of the tobacco industry. You have to wonder why.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: Tobacco bill has chance to help communities 

A bill now before the Legislature would help Oklahoma improve its overall health and help slow or reverse the dangerous trends involving our young people.

House Bill 2267 would allow local communities to enact indoor smoking ordinances that are stricter than state law, if they so choose.

Communities enjoyed that right until about 20 years ago when the Legislature, under pressure from the powerful tobacco lobby, changed state law to pre-empt the local communities' authority.

The tobacco industry, clearly, prefers to deal with one Legislature rather than a multitude of cities and towns. . . .

Once again, there is heavy pressure from the tobacco lobby to preserve the pre-emption, and it may be paying off.

Advocates for HB 2267 fear that Crain will not permit the measure to be heard and voted on in committee before the Monday deadline.

Jump to full article »

• VIDEO: Oklahoma Lawmaker Kills Smoking Ban Bill  

A bill that would have allowed individual cities to ban indoor smoking was snuffed out in the state legislature.

But now the lawmaker who killed the measure is taking some heat.

Oklahoma City is one of 11 cities who are interested in banning smoking in all indoor buildings.

Tuesday council members voiced their displeasure that one person could keep that from happening. . . .

The Bill passed the House by a two to one margin. And landed on the desk of Senator Brian Crain. the Health and Human Services Chair. And there it sat. Crain killed the bill by refusing to give it a hearing.

A move Oklahoma City Council member Ed Shadid and others blasted Crain for.

Jump to full article »

• PEARSON: Big Tobacco wins again  

Even in the face of close scrutiny and harsh criticism, a Senate committee has seen to it that cities in Oklahoma will not be able to enact stronger tobacco controls than allowed by state law. That means the tobacco industry can continue to concentrate all its plentiful lobbying resources in one place - the state Legislature - rather than have to deal with dozens of local governments that might care more about their own constituents than some well-compensated lobbyists. (Goodness knows the industry has the money to spend; according to one estimate, Big Tobacco spends a million dollars an hour to market its products.) . . .

In summary, the surgeon general concluded that the "establishment of smoke-free public and workplace environments; and statewide, community-wide and school-based programs and policies are effective in reducing the initiation, prevalence and intensity of smoking among youth and young adults."

So in other words, if Oklahoma leaders would pave the way for stronger tobacco-control policies at the local level - which has been done in 48 other states - then there's a very good change lots of Oklahoma teens would never take up the deadly habit, and would live much longer, healthier, happier lives.

Lawmakers still have the ability to resurrect a local-control measure. But rather than look out for the future of Oklahoma's young people, some lawmakers appear to be looking out for the future of the tobacco industry. You have to wonder why.

Jump to full article »

Capitol Notebook: Smoking, water bills stall Inman Inman  

• PEARSON: Local control over tobacco use still an elusive goal  

Will this legislative session be another "love fest" between Oklahoma lawmakers and the tobacco industry?

That's how an industry representative described lawmaker-lobbyist relations years ago, when Big Tobacco usually got its way at the Capitol, and that's the kind of coziness the industry is hoping to rekindle this session.

Twenty-five years after Tulsa health leaders launched the movement seeking local controls on tobacco use, health advocates are still fighting for that right. A legislative measure that would allow local control is alive, but badly bruised. Big Tobacco will not go down easy.

As one industry leader put it back in 1990: "We intend to resist, at all costs, any attempt by anti-tobacco forces to repeal the state's pre-emption of local smoking regulation." The industry's presence at the Capitol this session suggests its stance hasn't changed. . . .

It's abundantly clear that the tobacco industry doesn't want to deal with us locally, which should make us want that right all the more. If pre-emption is repealed, cities don't have to enact tougher laws. But if local residents want tougher controls, it would be possible. Why in the world wouldn't we want that right?

Jump to full article »

OUR VIEW: Let counties set their own smoking ban restrictions  

State Sen. Beverly Gard, R-Greenfield, believes it's important to protect the right of cities and towns to adopt tougher rules than whatever becomes state law.

So do we.

And here's another reason: With East Central Indiana counties having the highest lung cancer rates in the state (84.6 cases for every 100,000 residents) and smoking rates that trump the state average (23 percent smoke vs. 20 percent statewide), it's imperative local governments have the necessary tools to take action on behalf of the public's health and welfare.

That means local governments, whether in ECI or elsewhere in the state, need to have reserved for them the power to ban smoking as they see fit.

The Statehouse has seen a dearth of common sense in this short session. Let's hope that members of the conference committee can hammer together a smoking ban that allows counties and towns to enact their own ban

Jump to full article »

• EDITORIAL: Oklahoma tobacco endowment funds shouldn't be used to boost smoke-free bill  

Back in 1999 when the states demanded cash from Big Tobacco, lines were drawn in the sand. Either it was a well-deserved comeuppance for a reviled industry or a political payoff for trial lawyers.

Officially it was a way for states to recover some of the health care costs associated with smoking. That it also reeked of a shakedown in support of a noble cause is now water under the bridge over a sandy creek.

The states got their money from the Master Settlement Agreement, sharing in hundreds of billions of dollars to pay government back for what attorneys general claimed was tobacco's contribution to Medicaid claims. Politically connected law firms reaped tens of millions of dollars in fees for a case that never went to trial. And, as is likely to be true of the recent mortgage loan settlement, the states didn't use all the money as advertised. . . .

A line in the sand is crossed, however, when the money is used to influence a particular piece of legislation. Integrity is compromised when policymaking morphs into advocacy advertising.

House Bill 2267 would allow cities to regulate smoking in ways that exceed the state's own regulation. The policy itself — giving local governments more freedom to restrict smoking — is good. Using taxpayer money for commercials in support of this bill crosses a line. Funding smoking cessation programs is within the realm of what the trust is supposed to do. The same is true for public information campaigns on the dangers of smoking, especially those aimed at youth. But the ad campaign goes beyond that.

Lines are clearly drawn on this issue. No side should expect to get help from taxpayers to lobby for or against the bill. . . .

We're not trying to stamp an image into the sand here by saying the trust should keep its message benign. Or that HB 2267 opponents should get an equal amount of public funds. But when does a policy promotion, no matter how popular or how noble, cross the line into being a public obligation? The sands of opinion about smoking aren't shifting. Smoking is more reviled than ever, but the fight to curtail tobacco use must go on. It should continue without taxpayer funding to get a specific bill passed.

Suppose lawmakers were about to vote on a bill to let cities put a sales tax on items the state itself doesn't tax. Should taxpayers fund an ad campaign for or against the bill? No.

This practice must be stamped out before it goes any further.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Bill gives cities, towns control over tobacco 

Thursday’s passage of HB 2267, giving Oklahoma communities the right to pass tobacco restrictions that are more strict than those imposed by the state, is a big step forward for clean-air advocates. . . .

Nothing in the proposed legislation requires cities to change tobacco rules. It only allows them the opportunity to do so, something that existed years ago.

It’s a local control bill that won’t impact many communities but it does give them the options to have cleaner, smoke-free public places and lower health care costs.

Jump to full article »

Delaware County smoking ban trumps state ban  

MUNCIE -- Is it possible that smoking could return to Delaware County bars for 18 months?

A statewide smoking ban approved by the Indiana House and by the Indiana Senate's Public Policy Committee gives bars not already covered under a local ordinance 18 months to comply with the state ban. The full Senate is scheduled to deliberate the ban next week.

The 18-month grace period in the state law will not apply to Delaware County bars, according to Jack Ross, director of the Legislative Services Agency.

He referred to a section of the proposed statewide smoking ban that reads, "This (legislation) does not prohibit a county, city, town, or other governmental unit from adopting an ordinance more restrictive than this (legislation)."

"That seems to speak for itself," Ross said. But he added, "That's the bill as it stands today. It's certainly not through the (amendment) process yet (in the Senate). There is an opportunity for change."

Jump to full article »

Panel approves bill giving Oklahoma cities power to ban smoking  

For the second year in a row, a House committee approved a bill that would allow local governments to have the power to ban smoking in public places.

The House of Representatives Public Health Committee passed House Bill 2267 by a vote of 8-5. It now goes to the House floor.

The same committee passed a similar measure last year. It never was brought up on the House floor. That measure, however, would have given local governments the ability to use local law enforcement to check on tobacco violations, which is not included in this year's version.

HB 2267 would not give cities power over how tobacco is marketed, sold or taxed, said Rep. Doug Cox, the measure's author.

HB 2267 would repeal state laws preventing cities and towns from enacting tobacco use restrictions stricter than the state's.

Cox said Oklahoma is one of only two states with so-called pre-emption laws. Tennessee is the other one.

Cox, R-Grove, said the proposal would allow cities to decide whether to ban smoking in public places, such as bars.

Jump to full article »