Judge allows smoking ban suit -WY

By W. DALE NELSON Star-Tribune correspondent

LARAMIE -- Voters challenging a public vote in favor of a smoking control ordinance will be allowed to make their case in court that there were election irregularities that might have affected the outcome, 2nd District Judge Jeffrey Donnell ruled Wednesday.
Donnell, who has set a non-jury trial in the case for May 18-20, granted in part and denied in part a motion filed by the city to dismiss the legal challenge filed by eight voters. The ordinance is scheduled to go into effect April 6.
"Wonderful," said Sherri Derenzis, one of the eight challengers. "This means we still have a chance to make our case."
City Attorney Peggy Trent said she was "very, very pleased" with the judge's decision, in which he said the burden will be on the plaintiffs to prove that any errors affected the outcome.

Donnell said the plaintiffs' claim that ballot boxes were left unsealed and were opened during the election "may rise to the level of misconduct or material negligence of an election official which affected the result of the election, and must be allowed to proceed."
Janet Tyler, the attorney for the plaintiffs, could not be reached by telephone Wednesday evening.
Regarding the claim that voters were deprived of absentee ballots or that there was any effect on the result of the election, the judge said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that this was the case and "will have to satisfy that demand eventually, but, at the present time, their claim must proceed."
Donnell also left standing the plaintiffs' claim that the ballot was invalid because it did not include language required by state law instructing voters how to mark their ballots "for or against" a ballot proposition, although he said the argument "may place form over substance."
As for the allegation that some absentee ballots obtained from the city clerk incorrectly said they should be returned to the county clerk, the judge said the plaintiffs are entitled to prove that this happened and affected the result, although they have not shown so far that any ballots failed to get counted.
Donnell also said that the "plaintiffs' assertion that polling places failed to post instruction for the special election as mandated by statute must stand as it presents a claim upon which relief can be granted." The same applies, he said, to claim that some ballots were not folded.
The judge dismissed the portion of the lawsuit saying that the language on the ballot did not accurately describe the ordinance passed by the City Council by a 6-3 vote and approved by 366 votes in the Nov. 2 election.
The ballot description said the ordinance would "prohibit smoking in enclosed areas to which the public has access and places of employment, including but not limited to, restaurants, bars and private clubs." The challengers said this failed to make clear that it would also apply to offices.
The judge ruled that "even when considered in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the ballot summary was not misleading, especially given the summary's inclusion of the phrase ‘including but not limited to.'"
Donnell also dismissed the argument that not enough ballots were provided, saying the legal basis advanced for it applied only to general elections, not special elections such as the one on the smoking ordinance.

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2005/01/29/news/wyoming/a3cf20776172f04c87256f96000d270c.txt

By: Rep. Jamie Boomgarden

R-District 17 (Chancellor) Monday, January 31, 2005

Greetings from Pierre. The weather started out so nice and then rapidly cooled down at the end of the week. I found out that in Pierre you not only need an ice scraper to clear ice from the windshield, but you also need one to remove the goose droppings that somehow end up on the windshield.

The bill of the week had to be HB1075, this bill intended to ban smoking in all public places. I supported this bill despite many of my friends that own bars and restaurants. I do understand the financial concerns and the desire to have the state stay out of personal lives and businesses. This is my preference, as well, unless there is a good reason to look the other way.

Many people approached me and said that people know the risks of smoking. My answer to this is they do not! Sure, they know it decreases life spans, and causes some illnesses, but they have never seen a person dying from these diseases.

I work at a hospital and have seen a couple hundred terminally ill patients; not all of them smoked, but the ones that did always repeat the same phrase -- "I wish I had never started that habit!" -- as they gasp for their breath. I have seen people constantly vomiting from chemotherapy and medications, and I have personally watched three young children and their mother all crying and hugging their 45-year-old father (who was a heavy smoker) after he just received word that he only has three months to live.

To this day, I cannot get that image out of my head, and that is why I had to vote in favor of this bill. The bad part was, I actually voted to table the bill after an amendment failed, fearing the bill would completely fail without it. This mistake made it look like I was against the bill, but I did favor it.

The House passed HB1061, which is one of those bills we have no choice on. If it did not pass, the state would lose $7 million the first year for highway funds and multiply the loss each year after. The bill affects commercial drivers licenses in that, if they are convicted of a DUI or other similar violation in their "personal" vehicles, they can lose their drivers licenses and NOT be able to get a work permit.

HB1055 passed the House and is related to the SDDS settlement fund. This involves the case of the waste disposal site out in western South Dakota in 1993. The state granted a permit to construct this disposal site, and the company put financial resources into the project. The permit was contested and brought before the people for a vote. The citizens of South Dakota voted to deny the permit. The company sued and initially won a $15 million lawsuit, but a technicality caused to go back to court. The case has been in court for 12 years and, at this time, there is a $5.2 million settlement on the table that will put this whole mess behind us. If it does go back to the courts, there is a good possibility that a new trial and unknown judgment could cost us a lot more.

I have received a lot of mail regarding section 269 of Senate Bill 43. This attempts to fix the amendment that was tied onto a Federal Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban in 1996. This is a bad bill in that, if you're involved in a misdemeanor domestic violence act, you lose your gun rights for the rest of your life. This is not intended to make domestic violence a lesser crime but it did have very harsh (lifetime) affects on people who passionately like to hunt. This bill is in effect for those states like South Dakota which do not have domestic violence gun laws. The attempt of section 269 of SB43, as the state's attorney informed us, is that it is very likely that once the state establishes its own laws on this issue, it would satisfy the Federal Lautenberg clause. This is where section 269 comes in because it places a one-year ban on offenders of domestic violence as long as it is a misdemeanor. Ask yourself what is better: a one-year ban or a lifetime ban? The NRA is aware of and strongly supports this legislation. Be careful of the requests for money you are receiving out there, and make sure they are working in your best interest and not just for personal gain.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve you. This has been an invaluable learning experience for me and I hope to improve more each week. Feel free to contact me with questions or concerns at rep.boomgarden@state.sd.us.

Remember the troops and their families in your thoughts and prayers as they go through these tough times.

http://www.yankton.net/stories/013105/community_20050131015.shtml

Smoking Ban Goes Into Effect January 31, 2005

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- The city's smoking ban went into effect at midnight Monday, NBC 4 reported.

The ordinance, which was upheld by voters in November, outlaws smoking in all enclosed places of employment and public places within the city's corporation limits.

The banned areas include all places of employment, including restaurants and bars; all enclosed areas, including buildings and vehicles that are owned, leased or operated by the city of Columbus; and all areas near entrances and exits of a smoke-free building, so that smoke does not enter through doorways, windows or ventilation systems.

Smoking is still allowed in private residences, but is prohibited in those that are licensed childcare facilities, adult daycare facilities or healthcare facilities. Smoking is also allowed in hotel and motel rooms designated as "smoking;" family-owned and operated businesses and offices of self-employed people; retail tobacco stores; outdoor patios that are physically separated from the enclosed area of the establishment and do not allow smoke to enter open windows and doors; and private clubs with a valid D-4 liquor permit.

If smoking occurs illegally, the Columbus Board of Health will issue a warning letter to the proprietor. The second occurrence is considered a minor misdemeanor offense and carries a maximum fine of $150.

At least one local restaurant is welcoming the change.

"We actually had some new customers come in because they knew we were smoke-free and they didn't like the smoke," said Tom Kraft, of Tee Jaye's Country Place. "We'll do all right."

A local group is collecting signatures to put a referendum on the May ballot that would exempt bars from the ban.

Several other Central Ohio communities are considering their own smoking bans.

The city of Heath in Licking County is working on a smoking ban proposal that would forbid smoking in all public places. A vote could be made by city leaders by the end of February.

Newark and Granville also are considering smoking bans.

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/4145486/detail.html

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2005 12:00:01 AM

Movie stars are actors, not role models
This is the age of stifling political correctness. These 'democratically' acceptable attitudes to everything colour our vision in all things socio-cultural. In the past few weeks, from Prince Harry to Harvard's Lawrence Summers, the media appears to have declared open season on anything remotely controversial. Another example of this is the WHO report which states that Bollywood stars smoke far too frequently on screen. It says this unfortunate depiction could lead more young people to take up this deadly habit. This is to confuse a problem with a symptom. No one denies that smoking is injurious to health, or that it is a serious public health issue. But to expect our movie stars to foster clean habits in people is irrational. Cinema, like all art, only mirrors prevailing social contexts and situations. If directors are making stars smoke, it is, as they point out, because the role calls for it. Nothing more.

A good case in point is the criticism that Pierce Brosnan was subjected to, for a similar 'indiscretion' in his last portrayal as James Bond. He was shown lighting up a cigar in a scene set in Cuba. It led to a spate of condemnation in the media. From anti-tobacco campaigners to civil rights organisations, everyone criticised the depiction of Brosnan smoking. All of this was ostensibly to prevent unwary young men who know no better from being misled by the habits of the man who played Bond. The fact that the actor was playing a deceitful, ruthless, oversexed spy, who usually has no qualms about despatching diabolical villains and their henchmen to their dooms, seems lost on the cigar haters. Clearly, this is a case of political correctness run amok. Better education and awareness of public health is the need of the hour, not castigating our actors for their celluloid portrayals of social mores. They are just doing their jobs, let's not expect them to be real life role models.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1005407.cms

Monday, January 31, 2005

EAST BAY - Broad new prohibitions on smoking, along with enhanced enforcement mechanisms, will have a big effect on area restaurants and workplaces in the state when a new law goes into effect on March 1. The new law targets second-hand smoke and is designed to protect workers and the public from its hazards.

Yet at least one entrepreneur, Portsmouth resident Jay Massa, owner of Stafford Design/Build in Fall River, sees opportunity caused by the smoke-free laws. A non-smoker himself, he nonetheless believes smokers have rights to gather and enjoy smoking as part of the experience of eating out.

"There needs to be some accommodation for the smoker," Mr. Massa said, "while protecting the non-smoker from toxic gases. At the board of health level they would like to see every smoker stop smoking, but the reality is that's not going to happen."

He has designed what he calls a "hot spot smoking shelter" constructed of aluminum rods and supports, numerous removable panels, and roofed with durable flame retardant fabric. The shelter has a 12-foot by 15-foot footprint, is 9-feet high, rests on a wooden platform, and is designed to be free-standing outside and next to a restaurant.

The only one that exists so far, at Magoni's Restaurant in Somerset, contains a Keno TV and a standard TV set, an exhaust fan, a heating system, lights, carpeting, chairs, tables and ashtrays. It is enormously popular, he says. "It provides a space where smokers can go and not bother other people." Mr. Massa notes that "in New York, nightclub owners have rented limousines so people can go outside and smoke."

"What's the difference between a limo, or a Winnebago, or a mobile home, or a hot spot smoking shelter," he asks.

However, health authorities in Massachusetts aren't so sure the "hot spot smoking shelter" complies with that state's laws. Eileen M. Sullivan, who directs tobacco control policy in the Massachusetts department of public health, said that reports that "made it sound as though we had approved the smoking shelter at Magoni's were not correct. We had not." According to Ms. Sullivan, "It appears the smoking shelter is being used as an enclosed smoking room, and our law does not allow for enclosed smoking rooms."

The health official with direct jurisdiction over the shelter at Magoni's restaurant is Christina A. Wordell, an agent with the Somerset board of health. While expressing sympathy for the idea of providing an alternative for patrons who like to smoke, Ms. Wordell states that the shelter "does not meet the no-smoke-in-the-workplace law," and that she "will defer to the state department of public health which is about to issue regulations enforcing the law." Magoni's owner declined to comment.

The fate of such shelters in Rhode Island is distinctly uncertain. Mr. Massa said he's received "nothing but negative comments" from state officials and that the "health department people have not been very supportive."

According to Elizabeth Harvey, who directs the tobacco control program in the department of health, an official legal opinion, responding to a specific description of the "hot spot smoking shelter," and how it would function in relation to a restaurant or other business, would need to be issued before the department of health could approve it.

It does not look encouraging, she said. "[Mr. Massa's] shelter would appear to be enclosed, not open, is likely to be part of a workplace, if only for maintenance, is open to the public, and is under the control of an employer. My read is that the new law would probably prohibit smoking in such a structure."

What restaurant owners think

Rhode Island restaurant owners have mixed reactions to the upcoming new law. John Silva, co-owner of Barcellos Family Restaurant in Tiverton, anticipates that business will "definitely" drop, and that take-out orders will increase. He believes smoking policy "should be left up to the owner and customers should be warned and free to choose."

"I've never had a customer leave due to smoking," said Mr. Silva, who also said he'd never received a complaint about smoking in his restaurant. "As for employees, a lot of them smoke, and a lot of them that don't smoke don't mind if others do," he said.

On the other hand, John Louglin, owner of the Crossroads Restaurant in Warren, said "we initiated non-smoking in all our dining rooms five years ago. At first a lot of customers were upset, but in the long run we've seen more people and more families coming in than before." Acknowledging that currently allowed smoking in the bar area of his restaurant will soon be banned, Mr. Louglin said, "A lot of smokers know the law's coming, and they'll just have to adjust to it."

Ms. Harvey is optimistic about the impact of the new law. "Other states that have gone this route," she said, "have been very successful and have not had serious enforcement problems."

"At the beginning," Ms. Harvey said, "there will be complaints from people who don't know how others elsewhere have fared. But leveling the playing field helps. Most restaurant owners do better. People will still eat out, and some people will eat out more often, and some who didn't eat out before because of smoke in restaurants will start eating out."

"It's not a huge economic problem," she continued. "A lot of scare tactics came from the tobacco industry trying to thwart this new law."

"Don't forget," said Ms. Harvey, "that 70 percent of Rhode Island smokers want to quit. People forget how powerful the addiction is. With nicotine, you get 80 doses per cigarette. It's the most addictive drug we've encountered."

At a glance: The new smoking ban

"Rhode Island is leading the way in strong tobacco control policies in this country," said Deborah Ruggiero, president of the American Lung Association of Rhode Island. Once implemented, the law "will be one of the strongest smoke-free laws in the country," she said. The new law requires that:

* All restaurants must be completely smoke-free after March 1. This includes bar areas in restaurants. Separate smoking and non-smoking sections will no longer be permitted.

* Outdoor areas of a restaurant where smoking will still be allowed must be physically separated from the enclosed establishment so as to prevent the migration of smoke into the restaurant.

* Until Oct. 1, 2006, smoking will still be allowed in Class C (stand-alone bars) and Class D (private clubs) license holders with fewer than 10 employees.

* All businesses and workplaces inside will need to become completely smoke-free, without any "smoking rooms."

* If an employer wants to allow smoking by employees, the area must be outside and must be physically separated so that smoke cannot "migrate" back inside. The department of health recommends that any outdoor smoking area be at least 50 feet from the building.

* Smoking is prohibited in vehicles owned by a business and used by more than one employee.

* Smoking is prohibited in private offices, even the office of the owner or head of the business.

* Child care, adult care and health care facilities must be smoke-free, even when located in a private residence.

* The smoking prohibitions covering restaurants and workplaces apply to everyone entering the location: customers, patrons, visitors, employees and others alike.

* There are limited exemptions for retail tobacco stores, "smoking bars," hotels, private rooms in assisted living facilities and designated, separately ventilated areas in Newport Grand and Lincoln Park.

* Signs with approved language must be posted at all entrances to restaurants and workplaces with mandated language stating that smoking is prohibited and providing a telephone number and contact information for the filing of a complaint. Present and future employees are required to be told the establishment is smoke-free.

* Any individual — employee, customer, patron or member of the public — who wishes to register a complaint can do so by calling or writing the state department of health. Health and fire officials conducting routine inspections for other purposes can also file a complaint. It's anticipated that local substance abuse task forces will provide community support for complaint mechanism.

* Enforcement will be complaint-driven by the health department office of environmental health risks assessment (Robert R. Vanderslice, Ph.D., director).

* A first complaint will result in direct notification by the health department to the employer, whether a restaurant or other business, demanding immediate corrective action. Any second and subsequent complaints will be forwarded to the solicitor for the town where the license holder is located. The solicitor must then "without delay" initiate an injunctive action against the employer.

* Civil penalties for a first violation are $250, for a second $500, and $1,000 for a third and each subsequent violation. Each day a violation occurs is a separate violation. Failure to post signs is a violation. Allowing smoking, not just smoking itself, is a violation.

______________________________________________________________________________

Rhode Island's smoking grades

Tobacco prevention and control spending: F

* FY 2005 tobacco prevention and control appropriations:* $3,609,989 (actual)

* CDC best practices minimum state spending requirement: $9,890,000 (recommended)

* Includes FY 2004 funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Smoke-free air: Incomplete*

Overview of smoke-free air law(s):

* Government workplaces: Bans

* Private workplaces: Bans

* Schools: Bans

* Childcare facilities: Bans

* Restaurants: Bans

* Bars: Restricts

* Retail stores: Bans

* Recreation/cultural facilities: Bans

* Penalties: Yes

* Enforcement: Yes

* Preemption: Yes

* Citation: GEN. LAWS OF RI § 23-20.6-1 et seq. & 11-19-32 & 23-28.15 & 23-17.5-26

*Incomplete: Rhode Island's smoke-free air legislation is effective March 1, 2005. Exemptions include 50 percent of hotel/motel rooms, retail tobacco stores, smoking bars and facilities with Class C & D liquor licenses with no more than 10 employees until Oct. 1, 2006. The American Lung Association of Rhode Island expects the grade to be changed from an incomplete to an A with the enactment of the smoke-free air legislation on March 1.

Cigarette tax: A

* Tax rate per pack of 20: $2.460*

* On July 1, 2004, the cigarette tax was raised from $1.71 to $2.46 per pack

Youth access: A

Overview of youth access law(s):

* Minimum age requirement: Yes

* Packaging: Prohibits all cigarette sales other than in a sealed package conforming to federal labeling requirements: Yes

* Clerk intervention: Prohibits access to or purchase of tobacco products without the intervention of a sales clerk: No

* Photographic identification: Require merchants to request photographic identification for customers who appear to be under 21 years of age: No

* Vending machines: Restricts

* Free distribution: Bans

* Graduated penalties or fines on retailers: Yes

* Establishes random, unannounced inspections: Yes

* Establishes statewide enforcement agency: Yes

* Preemption: No

* Citation: GEN. LAWS OF RI § 11-9-13 et seq.

Source: American Lung Association

______________________________________________________________________________

Facts & figures , A few interesting Rhode Island statistics pertaining to smoking:

* Every year, 1,800 Rhode Islanders die from smoking

* 200 people annually die in the state from exposure to second-hand smoke.

* 19% of high school students and 9% of middle school students smoke.

* 5% of high school males use smokeless tobacco.

* Every year 2,700 children in Rhode Island become established daily smokers.

* 22% percent of Rhode Island adults smoke.

* 53,000 children are exposed to second-hand smoke at home, and are more likely to get colds, allergies, asthma and ear infections as a result.

* Babies of smoking parents are twice as likely to die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

* 0.9 million packs of cigarettes each year are illegally sold in Rhode Island to children and youth.

* Health care expenditures directly related to tobacco use exceed $396 million every year.

* Tobacco costs Rhode Islanders $170 million in taxes for health care and $90 million in Medicaid payments.

* Additional annual expenditures in Rhode Island for babies' health problems caused by smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy is $4 to $13 million.

* Second-hand smoke contains more than 4,000 chemicals, including 43 known to cause cancer.

* Waitresses have higher rates of lung cancer and heart disease than any other traditionally female occupation.

* One 8-hour shift in a smoke-filled bar is the same as smoking 16 cigarettes.

* Smoking is worse for women than it is for men. Women are more likely to get lung cancer than men, and more women die of lung cancer than breast cancer.

— Source: Rhode Island Department of Health, American Lung Association of Rhode Island

______________________________________________________________________________

Resources

* To file a complaint about smoking in any restaurant or business, call 222-3293; online, log on to http://www.health.ri.gov/disease/tobacco/workplacelaw.php and click on link marked "No Smoking Non-compliance Complaint Form"

* If you smoke and want to stop, or want to support employees or patrons who want to quit (free patches, free gum, free counseling), call 800/879-8678 or log on to http://www.health.ri.gov/disease/tobacco/tobaccobenefits.php

* To learn about Rhode Island's Tobacco Control Program, signs, enforcement, guidance, education, definitions of terms, visit http://www.health.ri.gov/disease/tobacco/index.php

* To read the new state law, known as Chapter 20.10, General Laws of Rhode Island, the "Public Health and Workplace Safety Act," visit http://www.hrcomply.com/law/RI.8392.html

* To read Department of Health "Rules and Regulations Pertaining to Smoke-free Public Places and Workplaces" implementing the new state law, visit http://www.rules.state.ri.us/rules/released/pdf/DOH/DOH_3258.pdf

* For National Cancer Institute findings about second-hand smoke, visit http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm

* For Environmental Protection Agency findings about second-hand smoke, visit http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835

By Tom Killin Dalglish

http://www.eastbayri.com/story/295247238659417.php

Arthur L. Caplan

The Truth about the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do about It. Marcia Angell. xx + 305 pp. Random House, 2004. $24.95.

On the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can Endanger Your Health. Jerome P. Kassirer. xx + 251 pp. Oxford University Press, 2005. $28.

Powerful Medicines: The Benefits, Risks, and Costs of Prescription Drugs. Jerry Avorn. viii + 448 pp. Alfred A. Knopf, 2004. $27.50.

Is the pharmaceutical industry a dangerous and crooked business that federal and state authorities need to bring to heel? Should those who develop, market or prescribe drugs hang their heads in shame when faced with the stark reality of what they do to earn a living? Is Big Pharma in fact the moral equivalent of the tobacco industry? One could well come away from Marcia Angell's The Truth about the Drug Companies or Jerome Kassirer's On the Take thinking so. In both books, the sort of moral opprobrium once directed against Big Tobacco is aimed squarely at the pharmaceutical industry, along with its legions of lobbyists, the politicians awash in its campaign contributions and the doctors it has bought, free meal by free meal, junket by junket, free sample by free sample and trinket by trinket.

Kassirer and Angell, who are physicians at Tufts and Harvard, respectively, and who are both former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, are not the only authors currently taking a critical look at industry excesses. Harvard physician and pharmacoepidemiologist Jerry Avorn also has a new book examining some of the problems with the way prescription drugs are brought to market, the thoughtful and incisive Powerful Medicines.

It's not hard to see why demonization of the pharmaceutical industry has become such a popular sport. As Avorn points out, drug companies are now so obsessed with profits that they are no longer willing to pay for the innovative research that they claim justifies the high cost of their products. He and Angell each demonstrate that the numbers do not support the contention that without high prices there would be no money for the next generation of miracle drugs. Avorn notes that data from financial reports submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission by nine of the largest U.S.-based pharmaceutical companies show the hollowness of this rationale for exorbitant prices. He cites a 2002 report by Families, USA, which indicated that these companies spent the greatest proportion of their revenues (27 percent) on marketing, advertising and administration. Next came profits at 18 percent—a rate of return that almost no other industry expects or can match. Money spent on research and development ran a distant third, at 11 percent of revenues. No matter how hard drug companies spin these numbers, they reveal priorities that serve neither patients nor the general public.

Other data in these three books strengthen the moral case against the industry. In the United States, patented, brand-name drugs sell on average for 80 percent more than in Canada and 100 percent more than in France and Italy. Efforts to redress price inequities by allowing the importation of drugs to the United States from Canada have met with fierce resistance from Big Pharma, which has waged a bizarre and deceitful campaign to impugn the safety of Canadian drugs. The campaign would be laughable had it not been so effective in keeping Canadian drugs in Canada.

The sins do not end with high prices, huge budgets for marketing and advertising, and efforts to restrain free markets. Drug companies, Angell and Kassirer remind us, have connived to do everything they can think of to capture the attention, allegiance and gratitude of physicians. And they have been able to think of quite a lot.

Dip anywhere at random into The Truth about the Drug Companies or On the Take and you will find disturbing passages such as this one (from Angell's book):

Suppose you are a big pharmaceutical company. You make a drug that is approved for a very limited use. . . . How could you turn it into a blockbuster? . . .
. . . You could simply market the drug for unapproved ("off-label") uses—despite the fact that doing so is illegal. You do that by carrying out "research" that falls way below the standard required for FDA approval, then "educating" doctors about any favorable results. That way, you could circumvent the law. You could say you were not marketing for unapproved uses; you were merely disseminating the results of research to doctors—who can legally prescribe a drug for any use. But it would be bogus education about bogus research. It would really be marketing.

Angell goes on to show that this is exactly what many pharmaceutical companies have done. In the name of "research," they have subtly encouraged doctors to use drugs for unapproved purposes, or for groups of patients (children, for example) in whom the agent's effectiveness has never been studied. The industry has also encouraged "innovative" prescription practices on the part of doctors who are not equipped to safely monitor and to learn from what they are doing. Outrage about this sort of conduct infuses every page of her powerful book.

Kassirer, like Angell, is no slouch at condemning ethical shenanigans:

Big business and physicians alike are involved in a massive charade. Representatives of the drug companies claim repeatedly that marketing serves an essential function in the health-care delivery system by helping to educate doctors so they can prescribe drugs more appropriately. At the same time, they press their drug salesmen to push the newest (and usually the most expensive) products, and their surrogate intermediaries, the medical education companies, are advertising their services as "persuasive" education.

Kassirer does not write with the same overt anger as Angell, but his quiet fury is palpable as he watches his beloved medical profession being corrupted by businesses willing to do whatever it takes to get their drugs prescribed.

It turns out to be relatively easy to make the case against bloated profits, the herd mentality of companies looking for blockbusters, dishonesty in marketing and crass schemes to pay off doctors, politicians and the media. No one can read these books and not believe that something needs to be done to reform the way drugs are discovered, patented, sold and used in the United States and around the world. But these books are far less satisfying when it comes to providing solutions.

Despite all the corruption documented by Angell, Kassirer and Avorn, the pharmaceutical industry is not the tobacco industry. Its products may sometimes be sold at bloated prices and marketed using techniques more commonly associated with used car dealers and Internet mortgage brokers. And some of those products may even turn out to be dangerous or ineffective. But Big Pharma, unlike Big Tobacco, is not selling inherently evil products. Many Americans have benefited from pharmaceuticals, and more do so every year, which is as much a cause of higher total expenditures for the nation as are increases in the prices of individual drugs. So medicine has no real choice but to deal with Big Pharma; nobody wants it just to go away. But clearly the drug industry must be better regulated.

Angell and Kassirer take a fairly straightforward route in their prescriptions for reform: Get the pharmaceutical industry away from the medical profession. Prohibit the drug companies from underwriting continuing medical education, get their sales representatives ("detail" people) out of hospitals and doctors' offices, and shut off the junket pipeline. And stop the industry from flooding the airwaves with ridiculously deceptive direct-to-consumer advertising.

Easy enough to say, but these are deeply ingrained practices that will prove next to impossible to eradicate. If you take the detail men and women out of doctors' offices, they will quickly reappear in the homes, country clubs, civic organizations and vacation spots of physicians. Companies are willing to invest heavily in these activities, which means that control (rather than eradication) is probably the most realistic goal.

Nor is there a lot of sentiment in Washington to take on Big Pharma. In the recent election the American people made it clear that they do not want or trust the federal government to regulate much of anything.

What Angell and Kassirer, for all the power of their books, fail to convey is that the activities they rightly condemn are all symptoms of deeper, more serious problems in the pharmaceutical industry. As Avorn correctly notes, it is a lack of science as much as venality that is responsible for the conflicts of interest and inefficiencies that are rife in medicine's relationships with the drug business.

Americans think that the U. S. Food and Drug Administration provides tight oversight ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs. But the FDA lacks the authority and resources to do this job well. The FDA and its European counterparts can demand that pharmaceutical companies provide them with data to show that drugs are efficacious. But they have no mandate to show that drugs are effective—that they will work not only in closely monitored clinical trials but also in the real world under a variety of conditions. Nor is there any systematic, independent source of evidence about the comparative value of drugs and medical technologies. Head-to-head trials comparing a drug with a rival company's similar product or generic version are almost nonexistent. There are no databases that report the results of all trials in a standardized way, describing adverse events and efficacy in various subpopulations. "The initial FDA approval of a drug should be seen as the beginning of an intensive period of assessment, not the end," Avorn says. But that's not the case. And into this data vacuum rush the detail men and women bearing gifts.

Doctors, patients, policy makers and regulators are all blind as bats when it comes to having the data needed to rein in the huge excesses of the pharmaceutical industry. If no one can really say which drugs are the most effective for whom and which will get the job done most cheaply, then marketing based on trinkets, junkets and hype will continue to flourish. If no one challenges the industry to live up to its stated ethical goal of using science to benefit patients, then simply telling the industry's detail men and women to keep out of the lecture halls at medical schools will do little to weaken their influence.

Not only is there insufficient science guiding the pharmaceutical business, the financial incentives it has are pointing in the wrong direction. Big Pharma still looks to make its breakthroughs and find its blockbusters by creating pills that lots of us can take every day for most of our lives. This means that the supply of birth control pills, remedies for toenail fungus, cholesterol blockers and antidepressants is ample, whereas vaccines are scarce. Big Pharma and its university partners pay little attention to public health and the ailments of the poor because there is little money to be made from them.

To have drugs, we must have a pharmaceutical industry. The key to reforming it in the short run is, as these books show, going after its worst excesses and tamping them down. In the long run, more serious measures are needed. With its self-proclaimed ethical mission in mind, the industry must be restructured. It needs to be firmly grounded in science and properly motivated to provide us with the drugs that will do us all the most good. Accomplishing that is a matter of dialogue and redirection, not demonization.

Reviewer Information

Arthur L. Caplan is Emmanuel and Robert Hart Professor and chair of the Department of Medical Ethics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in Philadelphia. He is the author or editor of many books; recent volumes he has coedited include The Human Cloning Debate (Berkeley Hills Books, 2004), Health, Disease and Illness: Concepts in Medicine (Georgetown University Press, 2004) and Who Owns Life? (Prometheus Books, 2002).

By Dr. Jeffrey A. Ratner Posted on Mon, Jan. 31, 2005

It is becoming clearer that at any given level of overall economic development for a country or region within a country, the populations of countries and regions with smaller gaps between rich and poor, in general, are healthier than the populations of countries and regions where the gap is larger.

These observations imply that the economic structure of a nation may be the most important determinate of the health of its people. To illustrate this, look at the health of people in the United States, measured by life expectancy. Fifty-five years ago, the United States was one of the healthiest countries in the world by this measure. Today, there are about 25 countries that are healthier than ours.

The United States has the highest infant-mortality rate, the highest child-poverty rate, the highest teen-pregnancy rate, the highest child-abuse death rate, and so on, among all rich countries. There are no indicators in which we excel, except in spending money on health care, for we spend half of the world's total healthcare bill.

Think of it -- for every dollar in the world spent on health care, 50 cents is spent here; yet, our residents are less healthy.

Japan has the highest life expectancy of any country in the world, yet there are twice as many smokers per capita in Japan than in the United States. To understand this phenomenon, we need to look at post-World War II Japan and the changes that occurred from 1945 to 1950, during the U.S. occupation: The first was demilitarization; the second was democratization, as U.S. policy-makers wrote the country's constitution, providing for representative democracy, free universal education and the right of labor unions to organize and engage in collective bargaining; and the third "D" was decentralization, when the 11-family zaibatsu that ran the huge corporations controlling the country was broken up. The most successful land-reform program in history was carried out. What this did was bring down the economic hierarchy and leveled the playing field. The resulting rise in health in Japan is the most profound ever observed on this planet.

So why do people with lower incomes get sick more? Is it because they smoke more (which they do)? Is it because they drink more (which they may do)? Is it because they use more heroin (which is true)? Is it because they eat more (which is true)? Is it because they don't exercise as much (because they don't)?

Studies have shown that even though these behaviors are considered bad for health, the excess smoking, drinking, heroin use and food consumption in conjunction with a lack of exercise, only explains about 10 percent of the reason that poorer people have poorer health. Learning this has been a revelation for me. I used to blame sick people for their behaviors that made them sick.

It is tempting to say that the reason low-income people get sick more is because they can't afford health care. But that isn't the case. Consider the Hispanic population: They don't access health care much, they tend to not have medical insurance and they tend not to go to the doctor. Yet, they tend to be much healthier than their non-Hispanic white counterparts.

The truth is that in the past 55 years, we have drastically changed the rules of who gets what share of the pie in regard to health care. Relative poverty, living in a large gap society is the worst part of poverty.

In next week's Health Break column, we will examine this tragic phenomenon between poverty and poor health.

Dr. Jeffrey A. Ratner specializes in pulmonary and internal medicine and is in private practice in State College. He is Chief of Staff at Mount Nittany Medical Center.

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/living/10775661.htm

Monday, January 31, 2005

For the second time in four years, this column is bearing the title, “Making advertising a scapegoat.” The first time was on April 9, 2001, when the Society for Family Health launched a radio campaign in its bid to fight sexually transmitted diseases especially HIV/AIDS. The ads advised the use of condom “when you no fit hold body” so as to prevent you from getting “any yama yama disease.” Many criticized the ads for encouraging promiscuity, forgetting that the scourge of HIV/AIDS was mightier than that of promiscuity. I could not but rise in the defence of the ads.

Once again, we have what I like to call strident criticism of an ad - the “MTN Na Boy” television commercial – for allegedly promoting discrimination against the female gender.  I have watched the commercial several times and I don’t see any explicit (or even implicit) discrimination against or hatred for the female child. The fact is that a male child was born to a couple in a city and the husband used his cell phone to immediately announce the news to the mother in the village. On hearing the news, the mother and her neighbours were excited and danced jubilantly to the vigorous and pulsating “udje” music of the Urhobos, ending it with the usual chorus of the ethnic group while dancing or jubulating – eeeh eeyeh!

Perhaps one is too simple-minded or naïve. Otherwise, there is nothing in the commercial to suggest preference for the male child. Some mothers would have danced the same way on hearing the news of the birth of a female child, especially if they had been craving for one.
I see critics imputing motives or reading too much into the “na boy” TV commercial – all because there has always been discrimination against the female child worldwide.

The criticism strikes me as misplaced, unwarranted, unnecessary and even hypocritical.  That’s why I am engaging in today’s update of my 9/4/2001 article. My main motive is, however, to draw the attention of practitioners to the fact that some of society’s ills are often blamed on advertising and that practitioners should not always succumb to such criticism. I am also seizing this opportunity to advise the regulatory body: the Advertising Practitioners Council of Nigeria (APCON), to avoid taking any hasty decision on the “na boy” commercial, if that body is not to be accused of strangulating rather than regulating advertising.

And now to some points I want noted once again about the criticism of advertising.
I would like it noted that it not unusual for advertising to be blamed for some of society’s ills. If anything, advertising is used to being made a scapegoat.

Frank Galbraith, an eminent economist, spent the greater part of the century just ended, lampooning advertising for making people buy what they don’t need. It never occurred to him to check whether the people he was referring to had any willpower or were mere zombies.

Some other eminent economist blame advertising for increasing the cost of goods, forgetting that advertising facilitates mass production which, in turn, helps in bringing down the unit costs of commodities.

Today, smoking of tobacco is blamed on advertising, drinking of alcohol is blamed on advertising, sexual promiscuity, which has bedevilled society since Sodom Gomorrah, is blamed on advertising, obesity is blamed on advertising and now the discrimination against women is being blamed on advertising.

Let’s first consider sexual promiscuity which some four years back had to be blamed on the condom ads by the Society for Family Health.

People so heavily criticized the ads that APCON had to suspend or ban them. Strictly speaking the SFH commercials were unparalleled in fighting HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. How?

First, they were true-to-life.  The situations painted were real and reflective of everyday happenings in the society.

“Correct Babes” was the title of the first one.  It began with a certain Celina crying and begging her friend, Sylvia, to escort her to a doctor to terminate her pregnancy. Sylvia said she would not escort her because she had terminated one some five months back and that correct babes “no dey carry anyhow belle.”

An authoritative male voice then took over to warn babes not to “scatter” their chances of making babies in the future or catching yama yama diseases like AIDS.

Additionally, he admonished brothers and sisters to use condom to “protect our today and tomorrow.”

Critics including APCON were perhaps holier than the pope by seeing obscenity or the encouragement of promiscuity in that commercial.

Abortion is an everyday occurrence. And AIDS is the greatest scourge in the African society today – especially in East, South and West Africa in that order. To checkmate AIDS and abortion, that commercial encouraged men and women to use condom.

Granted that the commercial did not preach abstinence from sex. But why bother to preach what the over-filled churches on Sundays and the electronic or Pentecostal Christian pastors have so ably preached without success.

The remaining two commercials - “Angelistic Angie” and “Evelyn Baby” - advised us to use condom if we “no fit hold body.” Is that obscene? Where is the obscenity in asking people to use condom so as to protect themselves against sexually transmitted diseases?
To me, the commercials were more beneficial than harmful to the society. Yet they were banned by APCON following some public criticism.

As I said then and I like to say now, sexual promiscuicity is not a creation of advertising.  It was there in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Similarly, the discrimination against women is a worldwide phenomenon.  It is there in churches and mosques and in government. Even civilized Europe and America do not yet have the culture of paying top female executives the same salaries they pay their males counterparts. And advertising has nothing to do with it.

Coming back to the MTN TV commercial, “Na Boy,” I would like to advise APCON to critically analyze the content and find out where it is really offensive. The actual content is definitely not offensive. What may be offensive is in the imagination of the critics and that should never be the reason for imposing a ban by a professional body.

Artistically, the commercial is first-class.  It is true-to-life.  It is striking.  It is simple.  It is memorable and entertaining.  We need more commercials like it.

http://www.vanguardngr.com/articles/2002/columns/advertising/ad31012005.html

By Graham Johnston  January 31, 2005

Local business owners can throw their support behind a proposed no-smoking ordinance for Columbia. They just can’t expect to know who those supporters are.

The Boone County Coalition for Tobacco Concerns is quietly circulating a letter of support, asking area business leaders to endorse the measure. That support, though, is strictly behind the scenes.

“NOT FOR PUBLIC RELEASE,” reads the undated letter, which is in the form of a contract. “This information is for the Board of Health and City Council ONLY!”

The coalition has been passing out the letters on an individual basis rather than as part of a mass mailing. Lara Sansing, who is in charge of education and planning for the coalition, said that the individual delivery allowed the group to speak with each business owner.

Sansing said the decision to keep the identities of ordinance supporters under wraps was designed to win over hesitant supporters. Some businesses are afraid of losing customers if they openly support the ordinance, she said.

“There are a lot more people that are supportive of this than are actually comfortable saying they are,” Sansing said. “Our purpose in those letters (is) to get members of the business community who support this effort to have a chance to let their voice be heard.”

The coalition hopes this effort will show elected officials that the measure has the support of those with significant economic interests at stake, said Kim Waters, a coalition leader.

“(It is) obviously a concern to the City Council,” Waters said. “It’s a public health issue, but everyone else is concerned about the businesses and the ramifications there.”

The letter contains eight statements explaining the hazards of secondhand smoke and the status of no-smoking ordinances in other parts of the country.

But business owners may want to examine at least one of the statements a little more closely before deciding to sign.

The letter’s second statement cites a federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistic that says 53,000 nonsmoking Americans die each year as a result of secondhand smoke. But the latest information from CDC estimates the number of such deaths at 38,000, of which 3,000 are due to lung cancer and the remaining 35,000 from heart disease.

That number is not definitive, said Joel London, a spokesman with CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health.

“We report at the very low end of the range,” he said. “Our numbers are actually underestimated.”

The coalition based its calculation of secondhand smoking deaths by taking the midpoint between the highest and lowest estimate from various sources, according to Waters.

After learning of the discrepancy, Waters wrote in an e-mail that, “It is not our intention to misrepresent any information. When you have many people working on an issue like this, it is possible to miss corrections that should have been made. Ineither case, the health effects are profound. We will make every effort to be sure our information is represented accurately in the future.”

Some businesses aren’t even aware of the letter’s existence.

Bill Woods, owner of two Steak ‘n Shake restaurants, one in Columbia and one in Jefferson City, wasn’t aware of it. Even though both his restaurants currently allow smoking, he accepts that he may soon have to change that policy.

“It’s a coming trend,” Woods said.

The smoker is used to getting kicked around, he said. Woods believes that in the future more emphasis will be placed on creating effective non-smoking sections.

“If you’re going to have a smoking section you’re going to have to spend the money to segregate the environment,” he said.

Woods is not the only owner left out by the coalition.

“I haven’t heard anything about it,” said Joel Thiel, owner of Otto’s Corner Bar and Grill downtown.

Thiel, though, is well aware of the proposal, and is adamantly opposed to the ordinance. He pointed out that Columbia residents seem to be more concerned about smoking cigarettes than they are about smoking marijuana, referring to the group of laws approved by voters in November that makes possession of small amounts of the drug comparable to a traffic offense.

After seeing a copy of the letter Thiel said he was concerned the coalition wasn’t seeking input from all area restaurants and bars.

“I think it should be left up to the proprietor of the establishment whether or not they want to be smoke-free,” Thiel said.

http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=11805

By John F. Banzhaf III Mon Jan 31, 7:13 AM ET

It took lawyers and litigation to start the civil rights, environmental protection, disability rights and anti-smoking movements. Legislators wouldn't act until the lawsuits caused change and produced publicity that led to laws and other reforms. For example, lawsuits aimed at smoking did what Congress refused to do: slashed smoking rates and returned hundreds of billions of dollars to taxpayers.

Five fat lawsuits have already been successful and, as USA TODAY reported, they were a major factor in pressuring fast-food and other food companies to provide more nutritional information and more healthful alternatives, and to take other steps to reduce obesity.

A court of impartial federal judges has now unanimously held that the same legal rules that apply to hundreds of products, from cigarettes to automobiles, should apply to fast food, and that those who sell it should be liable for their fair share of the costs if they misrepresent or fail to disclose risks that aren't common knowledge.

USA TODAY opposes the suits, arguing for public education and personal responsibility. But expensive taxpayer-funded government educational campaigns weren't very effective in reducing smoking, race discrimination, sexual harassment or other behaviors, while lawsuits were. Face it, personal responsibility by itself simply hasn't worked for obesity any better than it did for smoking and the others, and it isn't likely to.

Juries continue to rule that, while smokers must bear much of the responsibility for their own health, Big Tobacco must share some responsibility if its misconduct contributed to it. Surveys suggest that juries will apply the same principle in obesity cases, especially where young children are the innocent victims. After all, we don't hold sick children liable for the faults of their parents.

Moreover, if fast-food companies are not held liable, or otherwise forced to change, the $117 billion-a-year cost of obesity will continue to be paid largely - and unfairly - by the non-obese in the form of higher taxes and bloated health insurance premiums.

That's why, until lawmakers legislate against obesity, lawyers will continue to litigate against it - and probably continue to win.

John F. Banzhaf III is a professor of public interest law at George Washington University Law School and an adviser to the plaintiffs in the McDonald's lawsuit.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=18&u=/usatoday/20050131/cm_usatoday/lawsuitscanfightfat

The grim forecasts of widespread bankruptcies in the pub, bar and restaurant sector after Norway's introduction of a total ban on smoking in workplaces proved mistaken, at least so far.  The smoking ban was in place for seven months in 2004 and the number of bankruptcies in the risky industry declined.

In 2003, 386 businesses in the sector went bust. In 2004 this declined slightly to 372, with 338 restaurants and 34 bars closing their doors.

The indoor smoking ban was set to be the toughest in the world, but Dagfinn Høybråten, then Health Minister, decided not to start the measure by sending smokers out into the wintry cold, and delayed the ban until June 1, 2004, allowing Ireland to enforce a similar law two months earlier.

Oslo had fewer restaurants go bankrupt in 2004 while the casualty count for pubs and bars remained the same. Møre og Romsdal, Buskerud and Rogaland counties saw a rise in closures in the sector.

 (Aftenposten English Web Desk/NTB)

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article959680.ece

'Fire-safe' cigarettes for California?

January 31, 2005

In hopes of preventing house fires -- and the needless deaths -- caused by careless smokers, two state lawmakers have proposed that all cigarettes sold in California be self-extinguishing.

Pointing to the thousands of house fires caused by cigarettes in California over the past 10 years, Paul Koretz, D-West Hollywood, and state Sen. Deborah Ortiz, D-Sacramento, have co-authored Assembly Bill 178 that would prohibit the sale, manufacture or distribution of cigarettes in the state that are not wrapped in special slow-burning paper, starting in 2006.

"During the past decade in California alone, cigarettes caused more than 25,000 fires, killing 700 people and injuring almost 100 firefighters, Sen. Ortiz said. "This bill is crucial to protect California families and the men and women who risk their lives for us ever day."

Locally, officials said Ventura County firefighters responded to four fires in 2004 that were caused by smoking, including one in Meiners Oaks that claimed the life of a 47-year-old man. In all, the fires did more than $1 million worth of damage.

In many cases, the deaths, injuries and damages result from smokers falling asleep, allowing their cigarette to touch something flammable, such as clothing or furniture. Nationwide, more than one-third of cigarette-related deaths are children and adults who do not smoke.

Reason enough to support the long-overdue bill.

AB178 is modeled after a New York law, which went into effect last June after the cigarette industry finally met the required standards for manufacturing a fire-safe cigarette. Regulations call for cigarettes to be wrapped in ultrathin bands that serve like speed bumps to stop the burning of a cigarette not being puffed on.

It is hoped anti-smoking advocates, firefighters and consumer groups will rally behind this bill. Now that the technology for "fire-safe" cigarettes exists, there's no reason for cigarette manufacturers to object, especially since a recent Harvard University study of the New York law concluded that requiring slow-burning cigarettes did not result in higher costs, nor did it affect sales significantly.

Besides California, lawmakers in Maryland, Massachusetts and Oregon are seeking to pass similar laws, all which should serve to give Congress a needed push toward establishing a national standard for self-extinguishing cigarettes.

Although these cigarettes do not lessen the health hazards linked to cigarettes or reduce their toxicity, these new self-snuffing butts will make the habit of lighting up much safer for children and nonsmokers.

http://www.venturacountystar.com/vcs/opinion/article/0,1375,VCS_125_3509470,00.html

* notice that they never mention the combustibility of cloth. Exactly how did those fires start?  They never mention what the evidence is

Council amends smoking bylaw
Clarifies definition of patio
By Elaine Della-Mattia
Local News - Tuesday, January 25, 2005 @ 09:00
The city’s smoking bylaw received its first amendment Monday, paving the way for Algoma Health Unit inspectors to lay charges against bars that don’t conform to the city’s definition of “patio.”
The amendment requires patios where smoking is allowed to have 35 per cent of their walls open to the air.
The change also stipulates a patio must not share open doors or windows with a public place and must not be used as a main entrance. It also is prohibits sharing a thermostat, controlled heating or air conditioning with a public place.
Carol Wierzbicki, owner of the Esquire Club, told council local establishments have complied with the city’s bylaw but she and the others fear future changes will cost them more.
“We’ve followed the guidelines to specifications at great expense,” she told council.
“It’s law now as long as it ends here. I don’t want to see future regulations added.”
Wierzbicki told council it was time to back the business community, especially restaurants, bars, bingo halls, casinos and taverns, which have lost business to the smoking bylaw and are still waiting for non-smokers to “flock” to their establishments.
All have complained of a substantial loss in business since the city’s anti-smoking bylaw took effect last June 1.
Monday’s amendment was imposed to give business owners security against future changes.
They had questioned the city’s authority to regulate outdoor patios because the rules had not been included in the bylaw.
Ward 4 Coun. Neil DelBianco agreed it would be irresponsible to change the bylaw after Monday night. He vowed he wouldn’t support any future changes that might be onerous.
It’s unknown yet what provincial anti-smoking legislation will say or how it will affect the city’s bylaw, which is superseded by provincial law.
The province has promised legislation in the spring.

http://www.saultstar.com/webapp/sitepages/content.asp?contentID=95102&catname=Local+News

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(CCNMatthews - Jan. 26, 2005) -
Proposed changes to Ontario tobacco legislation and recent rise in taxes set to damage convenience store industry
Recent proposed changes to Ontario tobacco legislation, the latest rise in tobacco taxes and increased occurrences of theft have convenient store retailers concerned about the future of their business.
The Ontario Convenience Store Association (OCSA) (www.conveniencestores.ca) says the ability to sell tobacco products is critical to the livelihood of convenience store owners. Lottery tickets and tobacco products are key items sold in convenience stores with 40 per cent of sales coming from tobacco sales alone. Limiting the sale of tobacco will result in many of the smaller independent convenient stores going out of business. Small family run independent convenience stores make up the majority of the OCSA's 6,000 members.
Workshops addressing tobacco legislation issues and offering innovative sales solutions will be held at the Convenience U (www.convenienceu.ca) and CARWACS (www.carwacs.com) convenience, gas and car wash convention and conference, March 1, 2 and 3, 2005 at the Toronto Congress Centre.
It is the only show of its kind endorsed by the OCSA.
Adding to the concerns of Ontario convenience store owners is the Supreme Court of Canada's January 20, 2005 decision to support Saskatchewan legislation prohibiting displays, advertising or promotion of tobacco products in places where young people are permitted. Some believe this decision may have implications outside of Saskatchewan.
"The Ontario government recently announced its proposed ban of countertop displays, causing some confusion as to what kinds of tobacco displays are acceptable," says the OCSA Executive Director Dave Bryans. "Some convenience store owners believe they cannot have any tobacco displays, including back wall displays. Currently, the only proposed change is for the removal of countertop displays that allow the customer to handle the product prior to purchasing it."
The OCSA would like to work with the Ontario government on another key problem - illegal tobacco sales on native reserves. The convenience store industry has seen a dramatic increase in crime, which police officers believe to be a direct result of the three tax increases in the past twenty months. As cigarettes become more expensive, people are willing to purchase them at lower prices on the black market, which results in increased thefts. Small independently owned convenience stores are the main targets as they are perceived to be without security systems.
The November 2004 Tobacco Related Crime Study, prepared by the Inkster Group for the OCSA shows that since 2001 - 2002 convenience stores has experienced an 127 per cent increase in break and enter incidents, while convenient gas bars have seen an increase of 28.7 per cent. About 53 per cent of reported crime events at convenience stores have involved cigarettes.
"It isn't only the convenience store owner who's concerned about the proposed display changes and tax increases," says Petro-Canada Senior Director of Planning and Performance Howard McIntyre. "Gas bar retailers have licensees who independently operate our gas stations and face the same issues as convenience store owners. One out of three gas bar retailers experienced a crime event last year. This number will increase as the price of cigarettes goes up. It will also fuel the consumer's desire to purchase tobacco products via the black market."
Convenience U and CARWACS are produced by Fulcrum Events Inc. in association with Your Convenience Manager (YCM), Canada's leading magazine for the convenience industry and Conveniencecentral.ca.
About Convenience U
Convenience U, produced by Fulcrum Events Inc. (www.fulcrum.ca), held its first 'school of convenience retailing' in 2004. It is an event  designed to bring together retailers, suppliers, distributors and  leading industry representatives to discuss issues facing the convenience store industry and offer innovative solutions for success.
For additional information visit www.convenienceu.ca.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
Sacke & Associates Inc.Margaret Antkowski 416.493.5723, ext 204 margareta@sackepr.com

http://w5d2.ccnmatthews.com/scripts/ccn-release.pl?/current/0126054n.html

    TORONTO, Jan. 17 /CNW/ - Ontario's Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan and Fire Marshal of Ontario, Bernard Moyle are appealing to owners and residents of apartment buildings and other multi-unit dwellings to take extreme caution this winter to prevent fire.
    "Every year, the Coroner's Office sees victims of fires that occurred in multi-unit dwellings," says Dr. McLellan. "In many instances, a few simple precautions would have prevented these tragedies."
    For owners and building managers of multi-unit dwellings, the following safety measures will help to avoid disaster and are requirements of the Ontario Fire Code:

    -  Ensure the building's fire alarm system is operational and that each living unit is equipped with a working smoke alarm.
    -  Ensure that if self-closing door mechanisms are required in the building, they are kept fully functional.
    -  Keep hallways and exits from living units unobstructed by items such as motorized scooters.
    -  If the building is required to have a fire safety plan, make sure it is posted and that all occupants are aware of it and know what to do in case of a fire.
    -  Ensure tenants know to keep exits clear, door closing devices functional and smoke alarms working at all times.

    The Fire Marshal encourages everyone in Ontario who lives in an apartment to prevent fire in their homes by taking extra care when cooking or smoking and when using candles or portable space heaters. It is also important that everyone know what to do if a fire occurs by developing and practicing a home fire escape plan.
    "When you live in a multi-unit dwelling, your actions may impact on all the other occupants of the building," says Dr. McLellan. "Following good fire safety practices will help keep everyone safe from fire."
    In 2004, 100 people died as a result of fires in Ontario. Twenty-two of these deaths occurred in multi-unit dwellings.
 For further information: Bev Gilbert, Office of the Fire Marshal, (416) 325-3178; Dr. Peter Clark, Regional Supervising Coroner, (705) 745-9887

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/17/c3428.html

*how many fires is caused by cigarettes? stats say, not many

By D. Grant Black Sunday, January 30th, 2005

HAVE provincial governments botched the public smoking issue? Is a complete ban too harsh? For once, Alberta Premier Ralph Klein might be on to something. Klein waded into the tobacco debate last week when he dismissed the health benefits of a smoking ban in his province. Klein views smoking bans in bars as anti-business, and he advised at-risk service industry employees to seek jobs elsewhere if they don't like their customers' smoking habits.

But if Alberta has found the right balance between health regulation and business interests, what happens when the Wild West, anything-goes entrepreneurship of the Alberta Tories grinds up against an NDP government's social engineering next-door in Saskatchewan, where the new Tobacco Control Act banned public smoking as of Jan. 1?

The conflict is centred on Lloydminster, the Yellowhead Highway boom town on the Saskatchewn/Alberta border that now finds itself divided into smoking and no-smoking zones. Since the smoking ban only applies to the Saskatchewan side of the city, bar-owners there are watching their business migrate to the Alberta side.

Smokers in Saskatchewan can now be fined up to $10,000 for lighting up in public areas, and fines against businesses can go as high as $25,000. In case you've been out ice-fishing for the last few months, Manitoba's public areas went completely smoke-free on Oct. 1. The NDP governments in both provinces consciously chose public-health interests over economic ones.

In the mid-1970s, roughly half of Canadians smoked. By the early 1980s, some offices still allowed their employees to smoke at their desks in between gulps of coffee and bites of doughnuts. But now, smokers represent just 21.5 per cent of the Canadian population.

In my experience, many of the holdouts appear to be those hardcore, Andy Capp types who manage to balance a butt off their chiselled lips while expertly weaving through traffic. Some seem to feel that it's their God-given right to fill the air with toxic blue smoke everywhere they venture. There's nothing addicts hate more than the state limiting their ability to indulge in harmful habits around other people who don't.

Back in the 1920s, the Prohibition on liquor created a criminal class of entrepreneurs who were simply filling a need. But governments finally realized that taxes levied on harmful, yet socially acceptable, substances would grease the wheels of essential services such as schools and roads. It's a Faustian pact that governments now have with purveyors of alcohol, tobacco and even gambling.

Governments, though, have been compelled to scrap the tobacco pact out of fear that they could be held liable for smoking ailments, since they have a responsibilty to protect the health of their citizens. So, most Canadian provinces and territories have resumed their roles as Prohibitionists.

My local bar owner is pretty convincing about all this. He says the non-smoking 78.5 per cent of the population that the Saskatchewan government is protecting from second-hand smoke does not patronize his bar. Most of his clientele are not walk-ins, but regulars who smoke when they drink, socialize and push VLT buttons. He smokes, and so do his staff. If bar patrons who smoke are forced to head home to their own kitchen party, how does that keep people employed in the service industry?

Everybody knows that tobacco is bad for you. But a bar isn't a pilates studio -- it's not really a "public place." It's a place of free will, where people go to imbibe alcohol, fully aware that their liver could cack after years of alcohol abuse. You could abuse yourself at home with a bottle just as easily, but where's the entertainment value in that exercise?

Let's be fair about a compromise with bar owners: an entrepreneur who provides the social lubricant called alcohol should be allowed to create a separate area for their smoking clientele, with staff who smoke replenishing the drinks there.

Smokers to the left, non-smokers to the right. It would create two social dynamics, just like the days of separate entrances for ladies and gentlemen at beverage rooms. Smokers deserve their own smoking pens in their favourite watering holes.

Remember, even Vancouver's heroin addicts have their own subsidized shooting galleries.

D. Grant Black is a Saskatchewan journalist and pundit.

www.winnipegfreepress.com

CBC News Last Updated Sun, 30 Jan 2005 13:17:36 EST

PITT MEADOWS, B.C. - Police are investigating after about 100 people, many of them children, were poisoned by carbon-monoxide at a hockey arena east of Vancouver.

Dozens of people were overcome by the fumes at the arena in Pitt Meadows Saturday.

Some were treated by emergency crews inside the arena, while others were rushed to hospital.

Police suspect the gas came from the exhaust of an ice-cleaning machine.

They are also looking into whether the air circulation system at the Ridge Meadows arena was tampered with.

General manager Jerry Remak says someone appears to have broken into the facility. He found that a padlock was missing at one of the entrances to the building and the ventilation system had been turned off during the night.

Fraser Valley health authority spokesperson Don Bower says four of the victims were transported to Vancouver General Hospital to receive oxygen treatment in a hyperbaric chamber before being released.

He says anyone showing symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning or any pregnant mothers who may have been at the rink Saturday should go to a hospital to be checked.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/30/arena-gas050130.html

 NEW YORK A federal judge in New York City has tossed out racketeering allegations the city brought against a group of online cigarette sellers.

But the judge will let New York City refile its claims in its bid to collect (m) millions of dollars in taxes.

 The ruling yesterday by U-S District Judge Deborah Batts came after the city had sued the operators of 16 cigarette Web sites to require taxes be paid on Internet sales.

 The judge said prosecutors could not prove the civil racketeering charges against the defendants, because they failed to show that the people who operate the online enterprises and the enterprises themselves are distinct, a requirement of that law.

 But the judge agreed to keep the case in New York, preventing it from being transferred to Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri or New Mexico.

http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=2869799

By Jamie Morgan 31jan05

A MOTHER-of-eight armed herself with a cleaver after a suspected serial sex attacker walked into her foster daughter's bedroom in a terrifying home invasion yesterday.
The girl, aged 10, said she was woken by the sound of someone walking through the unlocked back door of the Findon home and in to her bedroom about 5am. "It was really scary," she said. "I saw someone standing in the doorway . . . and I asked 'Who is it?'." "The man said, 'Go back to bed' so I asked again who it was and he just said 'Go back to bed'.

The girl said the man, who she described as aged about 25, then went to her foster mother's room across the hallway and exposed himself in her doorway.

"Then he came back and I started screaming," she said.

Her foster mother woke up and ran to the room the girl shared with another child.

"I grabbed a cleaver and ran to the girls' room and he was just walking out the back door," she said.

"That's how much he didn't care – he didn't even run.

"I was so happy to have him out of the house, I didn't chase him, I just wanted to make sure everyone was OK."

The police dog squad searched for the man while officers doorknocked the area.

The mother said she believed the same man tried to climb into the front window of their home about a month ago. "I was leaning out the front window to have a cigarette about 4am one morning and saw the same guy trying to get in the front window," she said.

"I called out and he ran off. His face is burned into my memory now, I would recognise him anywhere."

The man is also a suspect in the indecent assault of two girls who were sleeping in a shed on a property at a Beverly address last Wednesday.

Police said the two girls were sleeping on the Williams St property when they were woken by the man about 3.45am.

He spoke to the girls before jumping a side fence, escaping on foot. Despite an extensive search of the area by the dog squad, the man was not found.

The attacker is described as being of Aboriginal appearance, wearing a black jacket, blue jeans and a black beanie.

http://www.thesundaymail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,12100690%255E421,00.html

Growers attending meeting are urged to invest funds wisely

BY JOHN REID BLACKWELL , TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER  Jan 30, 2005

SOUTH BOSTON -- Growers of Virginia's top cash crop were cautioned yesterday to consider carefully how they use the money they receive from a $10 billion buyout of U.S. tobacco allotments.

Thousands of farmers and tobacco-quota owners in Virginia will get about $667 million over 10 years from the buyout, which Congress approved in October. Tobacco-farmer organizations had been lobbying for a buyout for years as demand for U.S.-grown tobacco dropped dramatically.

Several speakers warned farmers at the annual meeting of the Virginia Tobacco Growers Association that the buyout eliminates safety nets that were established during the Great Depression to stabilize the U.S leaf market. Starting this year, farmers will have no more price supports. Restrictions on where tobacco can be grown also have been eliminated, raising the possibility that production could shift out of Virginia.

"Make sure you focus on what is best for you in getting this money," U.S. Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., R-5th, told about 300 farmers and quota owners at the meeting. "I don't know if I would put it into an operation that is going to go up and down in the future.

"Prior to 1937, the market would go up and down, and that is the way it is going to be now," Goode said.

Growers got no news yesterday on when the buyout payments will start coming. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is still working out the details of the buyout plan, said Nelson Link, agricultural programs specialist for the USDA's Farm Service Agency in Virginia. Link said he hopes farmers and quota owners will be able to sign up for payments in early spring.

"It is a monumental task to get all this money out, and do it fairly," he said.

Cigarette companies are paying for 96 percent of the buyout, with the rest paid by manufacturers of other tobacco products. Quota owners will receive 10 annual payments totaling $7 per pound, based on the 2002 quota. Growers who produced tobacco from 2002 to 2004 will receive $3 per pound.

'Think about ways to invest that money wisely," said Dixie Watts Reaves, an extension economist at Virginia Tech. She reminded growers that the buyout payments are taxable. Payments to farmers will be taxed as regular income, and payments to quota holders will be taxed as capital gains.

The buyout legislation gives farmers and quota owners the option of getting a lump-sum amount from financial institutions in exchange for the 10-year flow of payments. But farmers should know that financial institutions will discount the upfront amount, Reaves said.

"I encourage you not to be in a big hurry to take a lump-sum payment," she advised the farmers. "Shop around a little bit."

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031780535314&path=!news&s=1045855934842

The Associated Press - CINCINNATI

Tobacco growers are being squeezed between the government's plan to phase out a 1930s-vintage price support system and cigarette makers' refusal to pay millions under an agreement tied to a master settlement of anti-smoking lawsuits with 46 states.

In 1998, cigarette manufacturers agreed to pay the states $206 billion over 25 years. The following year, in a deal known as Phase II, they said they would pay tobacco growers $5.1 billion over 12 years to soften the effect of reduced demand for tobacco.

When Congress passed the $10 billion buyout legislation last year to pay growers the equivalent of about five years of sales, tobacco companies said that ended their Phase II obligation. Since buyout payments won't start until later this year, many growers were left short of cash.

"A lot of that money has already been spent, and here they come and say you ain't going to get it," said Bob Koehler of Ripley, vice president of the Ohio Tobacco Growers Association. "That puts a lot of boys in a pinch."

The four major tobacco companies contend that under terms of an amendment to the Phase II agreement, they don't have to make the final payment of 2004 and are entitled to a refund of payments made earlier in the year.

Bill Phelps, spokesman for Phillip Morris USA in Richmond, Va., said officials in the 14 tobacco-growing states where Phase II payments were made agreed that tobacco companies would be entitled to repayments in the year the buyout was enacted. The states dispute that.

A judge in North Carolina ruled in favor of the tobacco companies last month, but the state Supreme Court there agreed to hear the states' appeal directly, bypassing the appellate courts. Thursday was the deadline for filing briefs.

Tobacco quotas were established to prop up prices and limit the amount of leaf that a grower could legally market. Ohio, one of the smaller tobacco states, has an overall quota of 10.9 million pounds divided among nearly 15,000 growers.

At about $2 a pound, the average grower makes about $2,600 a year _ supplemental income rather than a livelihood. Most Phase II payments due in December would have been a few hundred dollars.

Not so for Lamar DeLoach, of Metter, Ga., one of the nation's largest tobacco growers and president of the Tobacco Growers Association of Georgia. He sold up to 2 million pounds of tobacco a year in the late '90s, and expected to receive a Phase II check for $250,000 last month.

"That's a quarter million dollars cash flow I didn't have Jan. 1 to meet my obligations," DeLoach said. "I had to renew some notes in the past couple of weeks, and there were a lot of other farmers at the bank. There's a lot of farmers at the end of their string."

Even if growers get a favorable ruling in North Carolina, the buyout likely will force some growers out of business, said Ed Cruttenden, executive director of the Ohio Agriculture Department's Tobacco Program.

"It would remove hundreds of thousand of (quota) holders from tobacco forever," Cruttenden said. "The net impact of this is ... by the end of the program in 2014, about 75 percent of all tobacco farms we know of will be gone."

DeLoach, who farms about 5,000 acres with corn, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, cotton and tobacco, expects changes. He has cut back from 550 acres of tobacco last year to about 100 acres this year, and plans to turn more land to growing vegetables that customers would pick themselves.

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/ap_newfullstory.asp?ID=54124

go to find out what the health report says billions needed for elderly care Jan 27/05http://hcc-ccs.com/index.aspx

*** investigate A&W growth, and famous players losses!!! 

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/25/c6319.html

http://toronto.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/to-theatres20050126.html

Its worth considering that in Alberta those making the case for smoking bans have dropped the Health argument entirely as it has become totally discredited. The new mantra is smoking bans are supposed to make smokers quit. There's not much evidence for that either, but never mind. When the smoking ban was being imposed via a Banana Republic style plebiscite in Thunder Bay, didn't those pushing it assure all those who  would listen that smoking bans don't hurt business?
Non-smokers would surely flock to the smoke- free hospitality venues.
It didn't exactly work out that way, did it? If the issue is one of health and not money, "profits before principles" as Mr. Smith put it, then why not ban tobacco entirely?
 If the only thing keeping tobacco legal is taxes, how does this compare with the Utopian health benefits of banning it completely? Indians and the hospitality industry are morally deficient in putting profits before health, but the government is altruistic in "controlling" and" denormalizing" a legal product consumed by consenting adults?
 It is worth noting that last year in North Dakota, all the anti-smoking groups made their usual presentation calling for smoking bans,  increased taxes, propaganda campaigns etc, when one legislator asked why not just ban the sale of tobacco in North Dakota.
 The groups lining up to oppose the bill banning tobacco in North  Dakota were not smokers rights groups, but anti- smoking groups.
 Why?
 If tobacco is as harmful as they claim, should't it be banned?  If tobacco
 were to be banned, the anti-smoking groups would lose their annual hundreds of millions in funding, their six figured salaries, their endless winter conferences in Miami on teen smoking, etc. etc. No, its much easier for the media to potray Indians and the hospitality industry as morally deficient for resisting transparent social-engineering.
 Warren Klass (President Forces Canada.www.forces.org)

www.chronicle-journal.com

http://www.mychoice.ca/discussions2/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3471
Posted By: roxxon in Smoking Laws/Policies
Subject: Re: Tell me this isn't ridiculous...

__________________________________
Where I live the municipality of Burnaby and about ten others that I am aware of have enacted their own school board smoking bans on all school property indoors and out.  This all took place over the past 5 years.
I play a lot of basketball at the local school by my house.
I know the janitor( a smoker) who leaves the lights on for me after dark, so I can shoot hoops.
I read about the Burnaby school boards' proposed outdoor-school grounds smoking ban.It was to include sports fields, parkland, playground areas and any outdoor areas on any school board property.  I believe it was during the year of 2001, the janitor and I had a discussion about the school board outdoor smoking ban. The janitor informed me that he and his fellow custodial union members were told about the ban during a union meeting. THEY were expected to enforce the ban.   A school board member told them that all school staff including teachers, principals and other school staff were supposed to tell smokers not to smoke anywhere on school board property during their hours of work. Also, no school board staff would be permitted to take any personal smoke breaks even outdoors on school property. When enforcing the school board property smoking ban... If the smokers became confrontational, the school staff were supposed to phone the Burnaby RCMP. The janitors pointed out it was not part of their job description to be smoke-police.   They also expressed concerns about confronting adult sports teams that lease school sports fields for baseball, football and soccer leagues. Especially adult leagues where a number of the athletes smoke. The union also expressed concerns about telling youth gangs, parents and groups of youths about the school board's non-smoking policy on all school property. The union told the school board that their members did not want possibly dangerous confrontations with the public over the school property smoking ban. When the meeting was over and the school board representative left the membership voted almost unanimously to ignore the school board's smoking ban enforcement policy that would have effectively turned the membership into smoke-police.   About 2 weeks later... All school board employees received a letter stating that it was now considered a condition of employment for all school staff to enforce the school board's 100% non-smoking policy on all school board property.   I have never seen anyone who is employed by any school enforcing that insane school board smoking policy where adults are concerned. The policy is not worth the paper that is was written upon. Stupid rules, laws and regulations were made to be broken. And so they shall be....

    OTTAWA, Jan. 26 /CNW Telbec/ - The Honourable Joe Fontana, federal Minister of Labour and Housing, and the Honourable Chris Bentley, Minister of Labour for Ontario, will host the Federal-Provincial-Territorial meeting of Ministers responsible for Labour in Toronto, Ontario from January 27-28, 2005.
    The topics to be discussed include Canada's international labour cooperation agreements, wellness in the workplace, including work-life balance and psychological harassment, and occupational health and safety.
    Ministers will be available to meet the media. Upon arrival, media are asked to go to the registration desk located at the entrance to the Executive Boardroom, 2nd floor.
  ________________________________________________________________________
    DATE:          Friday, January 28, 2005
    -----
    TIME:          10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    -----
    LOCATION:      Toronto Marriott    Bloor Yorkville Hotel Toronto, Ontario
    ________________________________________________________________________

For further information: Peter Graham, Office of the Minister of Labour and Housing, (819) 953-5646; Peter Fitzpatrick, Office of the Ontario Minister
of Labour, (416) 326-7710; Kirsten Goodnough, Communications, Human Resources  and Skills Development Canada, (416) 954-0114; Belinda Sutton, Media Relations, Ontario Ministry of Labour, (416) 326-7405

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/26/c7222.html

    CGA-CANADA report outlines impact on Canadian society
    VANCOUVER, Jan. 26 /CNW/ - The impact of Canada's aging population requires immediate action from governments, businesses and consumers to ensure a viable economic future, says a report released today by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA-Canada).
    CGA-Canada's report Growing Up: The Social and Economic Implications of an Aging Population is the most comprehensive compilation of current Canadian data and recommendations on aging, gleaned from demographic experts in government, the private sector and not-for-profit organizations. The report's key findings are presented under four distinct headings:
    -   Health Systems Pressures
    -   Labour Supply Concerns
    -   Intergenerational Relationships
    -   Social and Private Income Security Programs
    "As accountants who are business leaders and who operate in multi-disciplinary environments, we believe that economic planning on this issue is critical," says Rock Lefebvre, CGA-Canada's Vice-President, Research and Standards. "The financial implications of our aging population require immediate attention while our economy can still support such initiatives."
    The report estimates that total health care spending in Canada, adjusted for inflation, will increase to $147 billion in 2020 from $80.7 billion in 2000. CGA-Canada says these upcoming pressures on the health care system can be more easily managed if appropriate planning and action are taken now, while healthy economic conditions and federal budget surpluses exist.
    Eliminate Mandatory Retirement
    The Canadian labour market will also be greatly affected by our aging population. In 2001, the median age in the core workforce (20 to 64 year olds) was 41.3 years of age. By 2011, it is projected to rise to 43.7. To ensure a productive society, the report suggests Canada should eliminate mandatory retirement and discourage early retirement incentives.
    CGA-Canada says it's imperative that Canadians understand the benefits of personal financial planning and know the advantages and limitations of existing social income programs. Canadians should take more responsibility for their own personal financial planning to complement government programs.

    Shrinking Net Worth of Canadians Under 54
    CGA-Canada also recommends further study on the intergenerational transfer of wealth as there is limited information currently available about how future generations will be affected by inheritances. Recent data on wealth among the different age groups reveals that Canadians nearing retirement have experienced a significant gain in their net worth, while those under 54 have seen it shrink.
    "CGA-Canada is committed to making a meaningful contribution to the current debate on aging," adds Lefebvre. "We believe this report can serve as a starting point so Canadians can examine their future financial needs and plan accordingly."
    Immediate Actions Required
    CGA-Canada believes that positive actions in the near term can significantly improve outcomes for the aging population. The association recommends that:
    -   Governments consider establishing a 'seniors health account.'
    -   Mandatory retirement and related incentives be eliminated.
    -   The Income Tax Act be adjusted to implement phased-in retirement.
    -   There should a reconciliation of projected increases in public spending with future wealth transfers and increased government revenues from current
            pension plans.
    -   Personal retirement financial planning should be encouraged.
    -   Canadians must promote policies which provide a minimum standard of living for all.
    -   Canadians need more education on social income program benefits and limitations.
    -   A national dialogue is needed on ethical issues around dying.  (Community-based palliative care and living wills may offer cost savings.)
    -   Canada should invest in older workers to ensure a viable, skilled workforce.
    "To maintain Canada's economic and social strength as our population ages will require strong leadership to change attitudes, policies and practices at all levels," concludes Lefebvre. "I would like to think that Canada's aging population presents a wonderful opportunity for us, rather than a problem."
    About CGA-Canada
    CGA is the second-largest and fastest-growing accounting designation in the country. With a focus on integrity and ethics, and one of the highest education requirements in the profession, CGAs have become the country's accounting and business leaders, providing strategic counsel, financial leadership, and overall direction to all sectors of the Canadian economy.
    The Certified General Accountants Association of Canada represents 62,000 CGAs and students in Canada, Bermuda, the Caribbean, Hong Kong, and China. The association sets standards, develops and maintains education programs,publishes professional materials, advocates on public policy issues, and represents CGAs nationally and internationally.
          The full report can be found at www.cga-online.org/canada

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/January2005/26/c6931.html

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hecs-sesc/tobacco/legislation/rip.html

Jan 27/ 05

Hidden logic escapes me

Let me get this straight. Youths are so impressionable we have to hide cigarettes from them or they will immediately go out and smoke, but we not only put ultra-violent video games in the centre aisle of department stores, we advertise them on TV and do write-ups on them in the newspaper.

Hmmm. The logic is lost on me.

Cathy Gilmore Winnipeg

Who said anything about logic?

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/Letters/

EDMONTON - Smokers who look to a government-sponsored phone line for help quitting are being given wrong and outdated information.

And the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission says it has known about the problem for seven months.

The province-wide help line offers support to those who call in, and refers them to other services in their communities.

 But callers are being told the Lung Association runs support groups – although it hasn't for more than two years – and are being given old, out-of-service numbers for other referrals.

A CBC reporter who called was given three numbers – one was out of service, one sounded like a home and the message on the third was unclear. Messages left at the two working numbers weren't returned.

As well, the counsellor on the phone said there was a help group called Nicotine Anonymous, but had no phone number or other contact information for it.

"Why are we spending money on commercials getting people to phone in when there is no help? It's really silly," smoker Maggie Zanuttini, who has tried to use the line, said.

Les Hagen, president of Action on Smoking and Health, says the problem with the AADAC line underscores the need for continued funding for anti-tobacco services, so they can maintain their level of support.

Lloyd Carr, who runs the toll-free line for AADAC, says the problem with the numbers was brought to their attention seven months ago. AADAC is now updating the information it has on anti-smoking programs so that it will give out correct information.

"We need to be more current with what information we are providing Albertans," Carr said.

The new numbers should be ready by the end of March, and Carr says those will be regularly checked to make sure they are correct.

In the meantime, Carr says people who staff the phone line will warn callers that the information they're being given is out of date.

He also says that the line is still a good resource for people trying to quit, because the counsellors who answer the phone can help people develop plans to stop smoking and offer support when they're tempted to light up.

http://edmonton.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/ed-smoking-line20050127.html

By Charlene Tebbutt | Herald Staff Thursday, January 27, 2005
The manager at one Prince Albert bingo hall says his facility will comply with a recent warning about smoking in public places because it cannot afford to pay a fine.

Marv Radchuk said there will be no more smoking at Central Avenue Bingo after the facility received a warning Jan. 18.

He said the facility was completely non-smoking three days later.

The bingo hall has received several complaints since going non-smoking on Jan. 21. But Radchuk said it is too early to tell what effect the ban might have on business.

“We can’t really determine what it’s done to our crowds,” he said Wednesday. “We’ll see what happens.”

Businesses such as bingo halls were forced to prohibit smoking in light of a provincewide smoking ban in enclosed public places that came into effect in Saskatchewan on Jan. 1.

Breaking the ban carries a fine of $500 and a $50 surcharge.

Colin McLeod, manager at Carnival Bingo in Prince Albert, said the smoking ban is unfair.

He would not confirm whether customers are still smoking at his hall, but said he does not harp about the issue with them.

“I don’t disallow them,” McLeod said.

The Prince Albert Parkland Health Region says business owners who break the smoking ban will get a couple of chances before they are fined. Owners will first get a visit from an inspector, who will talk to them about the new law. They will receive a warning on a second visit, the health region said recently.

After that, the business will be fined.

The South Hill Inn in Prince Albert was fined this week for not following the ban. The hotel was issued two $500 tickets.

Josef Tesar, the hotel’s owner and chief executive officer, said he will fight the tickets.

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/news.aspx?storyID=28565

High court says masturbation at home not an offence if seen by neighbours

Wendy Cox Thursday, January 27, 2005

VANCOUVER (CP) -- The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that masturbating at home is not an offence, even if the activity can be seen by peeking neighbours.

The case centred on whether a private space -- Daryl Clark's living room -- became public because others could view it.

The high court said No in a unanimous ruling Thursday.

"The living room of his private home was not a place 'to which the public (had) access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,"' Justice Morris Fish wrote, quoting the Criminal Code.

"I do not believe it (access) contemplates the ability of those who are neither entitled nor invited to enter a place to see or hear from the outside, through uncovered windows or open doors, what is transpiring within."

On Oct. 28, 2000, Clark's neighbours across his backyard in Nanaimo, B.C., noticed "some movement" in Clark's living room.

The woman had been watching television with her two young daughters in their family room, a room lit only by a television screen and light from the adjoining kitchen.

The woman moved to another room for a better view, then called her husband. The pair watched Clark for up to 15 minutes from the privacy of their darkened bedroom.

The court found they took care to avoid being seen by Clark, peering out from underneath their partially lowered blinds. Later, the woman's husband fetched a pair of binoculars and a telescope. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to videotape Clark in action, says the judgment.

The judgment notes the pair were "understandably concerned" because they feared Clark was "masturbating to our children."

The neighbours, who are identified only as Mr. and Mrs. S, called police.

The officer was able to see Clark from his belly up from the neighbour's bedroom and from the neck or shoulders up from the street level.

But Clark was charged after the police officer shone his flashlight in Clark's window at close range.

The trial judge concluded he had "converted" his living room into a public place and the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

Clark was given a four-month sentence.

Gil McKinnon, Clark's lawyer, said his client is happy with the outcome and glad to be getting on with his life, but not interested in talking to reporters about his court fight.

McKinnon said the Supreme Court rejected the notion that people's private living spaces can be turned into public places just because someone can see inside.

"A person has the freedom in his or her own living room to do whatever they choose to do and is not caught by the criminal law if they have no intent to offend or insult someone who may not be on that private property."

The protection isn't extended to someone who commits an indecent act on their own property with the intention of letting the neighbours see it.

But in this case, the evidence suggested Clark had no idea he was being watched, the court found.

John Russell, president of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association, said he was surprised the case got before the courts in the first place.

But he said he was relieved the ruling when the way it did.

If it had gone the other way, "we would have to be a lot more careful about closing the drapes or covering up.

"In fact, most Canadians are careful in those ways and it would appear that the poor man had just failed to take the formal precautions."

http://www.canada.com/victoria/timescolonist/news/story.html?id=f3a0a241-cba0-4ef7-b76a-2a46d435758c

Diverse range of opposition fighting ban in Saskatchewan

Deanna Herman Thursday, January 27th, 2005

SASKATOON -- The war against smoking in Saskatchewan is being fought battle by battle, and right now it's not clear when a winner will be declared.

On the one side stands the provincial government, with majority opinion polls in its favour. The government's provincewide smoking ban came into effect Jan. 1. On the other side of this dispute is a diverse range of opposition, which includes the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations (FSIN). The FSIN is asserting its jurisdiction on Indian reserves, allowing Indian-run casinos to permit smoking.

The province recently won a battle in the smoking fray, but it lost one, too. And the outcome of a Charter challenge to Manitoba's smoking ban could influence the outcome of the anti-smoking war in Saskatchewan.

The Supreme Court ruled this week that Saskatchewan can reinstate its law that bans store displays of tobacco and product promotion. Under the law, which came into force in 2002, most stores had to cover tobacco displays with a curtain or put tobacco products in a closed cabinet. Tobacco companies challenged the law, and the province's Court of Appeal struck it down.

However, the Supreme Court said the province does have the authority to legislate in this area, and the product display ban is back. In appealing its decision to the Supreme Court, Saskatchewan had support from the federal government, as well as several other provinces and anti-smoking groups.

The thrust of the law is to change the views of children and young people about the acceptability of smoking. The province asserts that if young people don't routinely see tobacco products every time they enter a store, they will no longer view tobacco use as normal.

The provincewide ban on smoking which just came into effect is also part of an attempt to "de-normalize" smoking. But smoking still is the norm in some places across the province, particularly the White Bear First Nation, near Carlyle in southern Saskatchewan. The Bear Claw Casino is located on

the reserve.

The federal government decided this week not to overturn a bylaw which allows businesses such as the casino to set aside up to 40 per cent of their establishments as a smoking area. Band councils can pass bylaws under the Indian Act, but the bylaws must go to the federal Indian Affairs minister, who can disallow them.

The decision by the federal government makes White Bear the only place in the province where patrons of some businesses can legally smoke. Under the Indian Act, provincial law applies unless it is inconsistent with a bylaw made under the act.

Other Indian bands which operate casinos have not indicated whether bylaws will be passed to allow smoking in the casinos, however, the FSIN said last month that First Nations would be unlikely to follow the province's smoking ban. After a recent meeting between the province's First Nations and Metis relations minister Maynard Sonntag and the FSIN, Sonntag told the media that the FSIN's position has not changed.

Some bar owners in other communities have said openly they won't comply with the legislation. Many of those owners are in Lloydminster, a city which straddles the border with Alberta. The neighbouring province does not have a smoking ban.

Lloydminster bar owners would like an exemption from the provincial law, similar to one which says businesses on the Saskatchewan side of the city don't have to collect Saskatchewan's provincial sales tax, since there is no provincial sales tax in Alberta.

The province has refused to waive the smoking ban for Lloydminster, attempting to avoid creating a patchwork application of the law, and no doubt hoping to avoid the situation that has arisen in Manitoba.

Basis

The uneven application of Manitoba's anti-smoking law is the basis for a Charter challenge to the legislation. Since the law does not apply to Indian reserves, a Winnipeg lawyer is arguing that the ban is not treating his client, a Treherne bar owner, equally under the law. Art Stacey is also arguing that the province is stepping into federal jurisdiction by creating a criminal law.

Such arguments are the substance of Supreme Court hearings, so it is easy to imagine this case, or a similar one from another province, eventually being ruled on by the court.

That process will take several years, however. In the meantime, Saskatchewan's law is likely to uncomfortably co-exist with bylaws that permit smoking on Indian reserves. And after the two-month "grace period," during which health inspectors will attempt to educate business owners about the necessity of the new law, the province is likely to be strict about pursuing fines against businesses that do not comply.

In those years until the Supreme Court decides on the legality of provincial smoking bans, perhaps Saskatchewan's law will have enough time do what it is designed to do, which is to stop young people from taking up smoking.

If young people see that there are no public places (excluding those on reserves) where it is acceptable to smoke, and tobacco products are not ubiquitously displayed in public view, attitudes are likely to gradually change.

The reduced health-care costs that will come with lower smoking rates will create a "win" for everyone in the province.

www.winnipegfreepress.com

Letters to the Editor Thursday, January 27th, 2005

A recent editorial rightly questions how many teens actually start smoking because of tobacco displays.

Health Canada's latest Youth Smoking Survey indicates that the most commonly stated "perceived reason that youth start smoking" is the behaviour of friends.

That same survey has various categories of reasons of why youth start smoking -- retail displays and impulse buying do not appear amongst them. It does however include: peer pressure/friends; mother or father smoke; brothers or sisters smoke; popular kids smoke; curiosity; it's cool; something to do; it's not allowed; it's relaxing weight control; and an unspecified "other" category.

Retail display bans ultimately penalize adult smokers and legitimate businesses. Displays of our products do not influence the decision to smoke, but rather the decision as to which brand to purchase.

In some retail outlets adult smokers can choose amongst more than 400 tobacco products. These retail displays are currently the only legal means available to let adult smokers know about price and availability -- including information about new brands.

For tobacco companies this is important because it allows us to compete to become the choice of adult smokers -- something important in a constantly shrinking market.

Banning these displays inevitably penalizes many convenience store owners who rely on the money these displays provide as a key part of their livelihood.

 CHRISTINA DONA

Manager, Media Relations,

Imperial Tobacco Canada,

www.winnipegfreepress.com

Although three months are often prescribed for cardiac rehabilitation, it takes nine months for patients to reach peak improvement, say researchers from the University of Toronto.

The study, published in the December issue of the Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation, found a 52-week rehabilitation program that combined supervised and unsupervised exercise sessions was effective in improving both physical and mental health, with the peak occurring at 38 weeks (nine months).

"To receive the optimal benefits in physical fitness and quality of life, patients should attend cardiac rehabilitation programs which last for at least six, and up to nine months," says Dr. Terence Kavanagh, a professor in U of T's Faculty of Physical Education and Health and the Faculty of Medicine. Increased program length also gives health care professionals a longer period to help patients make heart-healthy lifestyle changes that lower the risk of future cardiac events, such as quitting smoking or switching to a low-fat diet.

In the study, 623 male patients with coronary heart disease were randomized to one of two programs. The first used weekly supervised exercise sessions over 52 weeks, while the second used weekly supervised sessions for 26 weeks followed by one supervised session per month for the remaining 26 weeks. Patients were kept on their drug therapies and had nutritional interventions as well as being prescribed a walking or walk-jog (where appropriate) program.

Dr. Larry Hamm, an adjunct professor in U of T's Faculty of Physical Education and Health and program director of cardiac rehabilitation at National Rehabilitation Hospital, Washington, D.C., says that Ontario and most of Canada already have programs that extend sessions beyond 12 weeks. "They would need very minor modifications to achieve these optimal benefits."

However, American programs typically employ supervised sessions three times a week for 12 weeks, a regime that is determined in large part by insurance company rules and regulations, Hamm says. While the number of supervised sessions used in U.S. programs is similar to that used in the study, the length of the program is considerably less, at three versus nine months. "We hope this data may increase the willingness on the part of insurance companies to consider paying for programs that use an extended period of time and possibly some unsupervised exercise sessions," he says.

According to Kavanagh, one of the primary arguments against prolonging the time for outpatient rehabilitation services has been cost. "Our study has shown that the costs associated with the modified 38-week program are comparable with programs that use 36 sessions in a shorter period," calling into question the practice of terminating outpatient programs at 12 weeks.

The researchers also found that in the later period of the study, from 26 to 52 weeks, there was little difference in response between the format that used weekly supervised sessions and the format which decreased the supervised sessions from weekly to monthly after 26 weeks. Kavanagh says this shows that more money can be saved by introducing a progressive tapering of supervision.

"Our results justify the approach first taken by the Toronto Rehabilitation Centre in 1968, and which has made it one of the largest, best-known and most effective cardiac rehabilitation programs in North America," says Kavanagh.

This study was supported by a research grant from the Canadian Cardiac Rehabilitation Foundation and was undertaken at the Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, formerly the Toronto Rehabilitation Centre.

This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University Of Toronto.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050128222006.htm

I COMPLETELY agree with a provincial ban on smoking. However, stopping there seems irresponsible. Alcohol is the cause of many problems, so it should go as well. As I recall, fat and sugar can also be hazardous to your health, so perhaps we should ban junk food, pop, some meats, etc. But rather than go on, let's just skip to the last logical step: ban life. After all, if you're not living, you don't have to worry about what could kill you.

James Draganiuk

(Living causes dying - avoid inhaling.)

----------------------------------

SMOKERS SHOULD be charged with aggravated assault if they smoke in public places, because the Criminal Code of Canada (Section 268. sub. 1) states that anyone who "wounds, maims, disfigures or endangers the life of the complainant" is guilty of that crime. We have evidence that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer and that endangers the life of non-smokers.

B. Scott Robb

(That's going a bit too far.)

http://canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/Letters/

IAN GILLESPIE, Free Press News Columnist Jan  29/05

According to some readers, I'm heartless, out of touch and narrow minded. I suffer from tunnel vision and occupy a "comfy perch."

And I bet dollars to doughnuts I've lost my chance to two-step with the Flue-Cured Queen at this year's tobacco growers' grand ball. (I don't know if tobacco farmers actually stage a grand ball. But if they do, I won't be going.)

After writing two columns about last week's farmers' blockade of Highway 401, I received a few, um, messages from tobacco farmers.

After expressing my lack of sympathy for tobacco farmers looking for government cash, Fred Neukamm, chairperson of the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board, described my column as a misinformed rant.

"Families that have prospered for generations are now verging on financial ruin because of the negative effect of government policies," Neukamm wrote.

"Are our rights less compelling than those of anyone else whose business is driven to ruin by government policies?"

Several readers posed the same analogy to me: What if, they asked, my job was in jeopardy through no fault of my own?

"What if all of a sudden newspapers were under the microscope for excessive waste of paper . . . and your job was terminated with no severance package?" e-mailed Andrew Sebok.

"Would you honestly accept being let go for no other reason than society's perception of what newspapers are doing to the environment . . . or would you get a lawyer and try to sue someone for wrongful dismissal?"

Well, let's think about that.

If I knew newspapers were causing the deaths of thousands upon thousands of people, I might do a bit of soul-searching and decide that I didn't want to be part of it.

Failing that, if I was told my job would be eliminated a week, a month, or a year from now, yes, I'd be perturbed. And I'd seek severance pay.

But I don't think I could justifiably complain too loudly if I'd been hearing this news for 50 years.

And that's where this argument comes unglued. Consider the following:

* In 1950, the first modern studies connecting smoking and lung cancer were published.

* In 1963, the late Judy LaMarsh, then minister of national health and welfare, stood in the House of Commons and said smoking caused lung cancer. That same year, the federal Health Department started its anti-smoking program.

So the news tobacco is bad and that the government wants to stop its citizens from smoking isn't exactly a bolt from the blue.

Furthermore, I talked to a bunch of tobacco farmers at last Friday's blockade. Some were younger than me. And I'd venture very few of them were growing tobacco 50 years ago.

So, despite steep investments, government discouragement and the vagaries of weather and marketing boards, these farmers have chosen -- I repeat, chosen -- to grow this toxic leaf.

If somebody warned me for half a century to get out of the newspaper business, I don't think I could plead I didn't see it coming.

And if everyone was saying newspapers were unhealthy and the industry was doomed, I certainly wouldn't choose it as a career.

Neukamm blames the government for the tobacco industry's crisis. But some, like Canadian Cancer Society analyst Rob Cunningham, argue the main problems facing local tobacco farmers are the rising Canadian loonie, the high cost of labour, our shorter growing season and international competition.

One argument I heard at the highway blockade was that the Canadian government wants it both ways -- that for years, it has profited from tobacco taxes while bleeding the farmers dry.

But that argument doesn't cut it with Cunningham. He says the numbers vary, but right now, the federal and provincial governments combined collect about $8 billion from tobacco taxes.

But he says tobacco costs the government far more -- about $15 billion a year in health care and economic costs.

"Society pays because of tobacco," Cunningham says. "When a mother or father dies and a family loses their wage earner to smoking, they don't get compensated."

Now there's a novel idea. Instead of compensating struggling tobacco farmers, maybe we should ask them to compensate all the Canadian families who've watched a loved one die from inhaling their wretched product.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/London/Ian_Gillespie/2005/01/29/913547.html

CBC News WebPosted Jan 28 2005 11:21 AM NST
ST. JOHN'S  —  The lawyer hired by clubs and bingo halls to fight an all-out smoking ban is warning the provincial government its decision could hit Confederation Building in the pocketbook.

 "If the bar owners are able to show losses, the government could open itself up to a class suit in the millions and millions of dollars," says Richard Rogers, whose law firm has been hired by the Beverage Industry Association.

 Government announced in December it wanted a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places, including bars, nightclubs and bingo halls.

 However, it is still gathering public opinion on the issue, and next week starts a month-long series of hearings on the issue.

From Jan. 21 Smoking ban plan heads to public hearings

The bars want the hearings postponed, and for an analysis to be done to show the economic harm caused by a smoking ban.

 Marcel Etheridge, president of the Beverage Industry Association, says his members are "under attack" from a government that is asking for too much change, too quickly.

"We're just saying to government, for God's sake, just go out and look at the facts and figures in other places," Etheridge says.

Health Minister John Ottenheimer, however, has no plans to accede to the bar owners' demands.

"It is a public health issue," he says.

"The statistics and information we have before us on second-hand smoke [are] quite convincing … We plan to move forward," Ottenheimer says.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regionalnews/caches/nf-bars-smoking-20050128.html

they want to know who is buying by age sex quanity etc.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/advspo/html/internetthreat.html

Updated: 01-26-2005 01:26:23 PM

ST. PAUL (AP) - A statewide smoking ban could be put to its first test tomorrow, when the House Health Policy and Finance Committee is expected to vote on the issue.

Lawmakers got an earful from both sides today.

Supporters say a smoking ban would protect restaurant and bar workers and patrons. Opponents say a ban would hurt some bars, restaurants, private clubs and tobacco lounges.

Representative Ron Latz, one of the bill's sponsors, says he expects the health committee to give the smoking ban a thumbs up tomorrow. The bill has to clear several other committees before it makes it to the House floor for a vote.

http://www.kaaltv.com/article/view/84834/

Anti-smoking efforts in Missouri are in line for their first infusion of money from the state's 1998 settlement with tobacco companies.

Governor Blunt is proposing to spend $875,000.00 next year on programs to fight teen smoking.

Blunt says Missouri ranks last in the nation in efforts to help young smokers quit and stop other teens from taking up the habit.

Missouri has received $822 million dollars so far under the legal settlement.

http://www.kait8.com/Global/story.asp?S=2874593&nav=0jshVkz6

A man spent almost 8 weeks in an Osceola jail. A photo could have freed him sooner.

By Willoughby Mariano
Sentinel Staff Writer January 29, 2005
KISSIMMEE -- After nearly eight weeks in jail, Hector Omy Collazo pleaded with deputies one last time: Let me go. You have the wrong man. A criminal stole my identity.
The Kissimmee man had made the demand dozens of times since Dec. 4, when police arrested Collazo outside his grandmother's house on a Texas warrant for felony forgery. He has never been to Texas, he insisted. Collazo has proof he was in Orlando on the date of the crime.
No one checked out his story until Thursday at Orlando International Airport, just as a Harris County, Texas, sheriff's official was about to escort him onto a flight to Houston. Collazo said that didn't happen until the Orlando Sentinel began making inquiries. After faxing Collazo's photograph to Harris County authorities, the cop handed over $45 for cab fare and told him he was free to go.
Now Collazo, 23, and his family are asking why authorities allowed him to spend 54 days in jail when deputies, jailers and other authorities in Texas and Florida had access to a photograph and other identifying information that clearly show they were holding the wrong man.
"All I was asking for over and over again was for them [authorities] to fax my picture over to Texas," Collazo said. "All it takes is five minutes."
The Osceola County Sheriff's Office is looking into the matter to see whether authorities here followed proper procedures.
"I've extradited people all over the United States. I've never heard anything like this," said Lt. Mark Thompson, who took over as head of the sheriff's extradition office Jan. 4.
The local agency that arrests a fugitive is responsible for verifying his identity, said Scott Haywood, a spokesman for the Texas Governor's Office, which asked Florida officials to extradite Collazo. Texas' Office of the Governor sends information such as fingerprints or mug shots to verify the identity of a suspected fugitive as part of its extradition request. A photograph was sent to Osceola, but it is unclear if prints arrived. If the request meets state requirements, Florida's Governor's Office allows the extradition.
Used birth date
The man who remains at large called himself Hector Omy Collazo of Houston and listed his birth date as Nov. 10, 1981 -- Collazo's birthday, said Gabriel Vasquez, an investigator for the Harris County District Attorney's Office. He is a 5-foot-6-inch black man who weighs 120 pounds, according to Vasquez.
Prosecutors think he is an undocumented immigrant who forged someone else's name on a federal immigration document Aug. 8, 2003, so he could keep his job, Vasquez said. His real name is not known. Collazo said he lost his Social Security card in 1998 in Puerto Rico; that's how he thinks someone was able to steal his identity.
Collazo of Kissimmee is a 5-foot-5-inch, 185-pound, light-skinned Hispanic. On the date of the crime, he was at Hogar Crea, a drug-treatment program in Orlando.
"The residential program is 24 hours a day, seven days a week. There's no way possible he was in Texas," said Joseph Hammerl, assistant to the program's executive director.
Soon after Collazo arrived from Carolina, Puerto Rico, in 2003 to join his mother and grandmother, he entered the rehab center to kick a drug habit. After Collazo left treatment in late fall 2003, he found work at Walt Disney World in housekeeping. He moved in with his grandmother, Carmen Jimenez, 60, who has cancer, to care for her and help pay her bills.
Collazo's life was improving. Then, late on the night of Dec. 4, he was walking outside his grandmother's house smoking a cigarette. A Kissimmee police car approached.
"Are you Louis?" Collazo recalls an officer hollering.
"No, I'm Hector," he replied and showed his drivers license. He was taken into custody when a computer check showed a person with his name was wanted in Texas.
Collazo thought he would straighten everything out at the jail and that he would be back at his Disney housekeeping job the next morning.
"I said 'Man, this can't be true,' " Collazo said during a jailhouse interview Thursday.
Instead, he entered a complex extradition system involving multiple agencies in Texas and Florida.
An arresting officer must verify the identity of a suspected fugitive, Thompson said. Harris County officials sent a description of the fugitive to the Osceola Sheriff's Office, which handles extradition issues in the county. A judge can assign the suspect a public defender to help straighten out a mistaken-identity issue.
In January, the Osceola County Jail obtained a copy of the fugitive's mug shot, which clearly does not match that of Collazo, according to jail documents. Jail officials said they play no part in verifying the identity of their inmates.
"I don't know if it's for us to determine the identity. We go by the paperwork we have," said the Osceola County Jail's interim director, Joyce Peach.
Family in disarray
After Collazo went to jail, his family fell into disarray.
Collazo's family retained an attorney in Texas who was unable to sort out the mess.
"We're a good family. We're a close family," Sandra Rivera, 40, Collazo's mother, said Friday. "What happens to one, happens to all."
Rivera took days off from work at an assisted-living facility in Hunter's Creek to fight for her son's release.
There was no one to care for Collazo's grandmother, Jimenez, so his cousin, Jacob De La Cruz, 17, had to help out. But he couldn't pay the bills as Collazo had done. Jimenez filed for bankruptcy in early January, Collazo said.
Collazo also missed a trip to Jamaica with his brother, a soldier serving in Iraq who was on leave during the holidays.
Now Collazo and his family must put their lives back together. This morning, he plans to ask for his old job back.
"All it took is a fax," Collazo said of the mistaken-identity case. "They've spent all this money to jail an innocent person rather than send a fax."
Willoughby Mariano can be reached at wmariano@orlandosentinel.com 407-931-5944.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/orl-asecwrongguy29012905jan29,0,6237655.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

By Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H. Posted: Wednesday, January 12, 2005
EDITORIAL Publication Date: January 12, 2005

This article first appeared in the January 12, 2005 Washington Times:

Rodents are an insidious health threat -- but I am not talking about disease-carrying vermin. I am talking about rodents in our nation's most prestigious research laboratories. These animals, through no fault of their own, have been scaring us to death for 50 years while restricting our pursuit of an improved standard of living and longer, healthier lives.

A thicket of current federal and state laws and regulations (including Superfund, Proposition 65 in California, and Environmental Protection Agency and Food and Drug Administration regulation of pesticides and food additives) assume a rodent is a little man. Such laws substantially disrupt our nation's economic productivity (including diminishing our food supply) by banning any chemical that at high doses causes cancer in animals. This hasty practice poses a threat not only to our quality of life but also to our very lives and health.

Perhaps you remember some specific examples of government's attempts to ban useful chemicals (like the sweeteners cyclamate and saccharin) because at high dose they cause cancer in rats. Probably you recall the great Alar-apple panic of 1989 when actress-turned-toxicologist Meryl Streep and an activist environmental group (with the EPA's blessing) told us apples presented an "intolerable risk" of cancer in children because they were treated with Alar, which at high doses caused cancer in rodents. More recently, you may remember self-appointed consumer groups argued french fries were a cancer risk because frying high-starch foods produces a chemical called acrylamide, another rodent carcinogen.

But what you might not know is that the rodent-is-a-little-man premise now has spawned unprecedented increases in environmental regulation (purportedly to protect us from cancer) and has contributed substantially to the cost of most goods and services, insurance premiums, legal fees and federal taxes while reducing job opportunities and incentives for innovation. All this without offering any known public health benefit whatsoever.

For example, the so-called Delaney Clause, passed b