Smoke attack

ANDREA SANDS, CITY HALL BUREAU

Albertans must demand provincial anti-smoking legislation similar to rules that will soon protect Canadians in five other provinces and territories, says a coalition of 14 health groups. "Don't Albertans deserve the same protection?" said Les Hagen of Action on Smoking and Health. "Albertans do not have second-class lungs."

Governments in New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nunavut and the Northwest Territories have all approved new smoking rules to protect workers from second-hand smoke, Hagen noted.

And the Campaign for a Smoke-Free Alberta - a group of non-profit groups including the Alberta Cancer Board, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Alberta and the Alberta Union of Provincial Employees - is urging Alberta voters to make this an election issue.

The group vowed at a press conference yesterday to organize a provincial letter-writing campaign, run media advertisements, launch an online petition and run a high-profile campaign leading up to the November provincial election.

Albertans must push their provincial representatives to protect all workers from second-hand smoke, including people working in bars, bingos and casinos, the group argued.

AUPE boss Dan MacLennan noted such legislation would give staff in a bar the same right to clean air as workers now enjoy in provincial jails, which went smoke-free last week.

"If it wasn't social engineering to bring in seat-belt legislation, it's not social engineering to bring in tobacco legislation" MacLennan reasoned. "I think a lot of MLAs, including Conservatives, support it."

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/10/05/656281.html

 

Cigarette maker's PR program talks about health dangers -IL, USA

Knight Ridder News

PEORIA, Ill. - An official of Philip Morris USA says his company "makes a dangerous product that causes addiction and serious disease." Mike Farriss, senior vice president of communications and government affairs for the Richmond, Va.-based company, visited Peoria recently to address the subject of corporate responsibility.

Philip Morris, the leading U.S. cigarette manufacturer with brands that include Marlboro and Virginia Slims, has undertaken a public relations program to promote the problems associated with cigarette smoking while continuing to sell cigarettes.

"There's no silver bullet for corporate responsibility. There's no end to it," he said.

Farriss, a Philip Morris employee for 26 years, said the company has changed the way it deals with cigarette smoking.

"We once assumed that all we had to do was follow the law and meet our business objectives. That worked for a long time," he said.

But with increased opposition to smoking, including more litigation and higher taxes, Philip Morris decided to become more responsible, said Farriss. "It's the right thing to do. It's what society expects us to do," he said.

Philip Morris makes its position clear, said Farriss. "There is no safe cigarette. The best way to avoid harm is to quit or not to start at all," he said.

While Philip Morris produces literature and TV commercials citing health risks involved in smoking and discouraging underage smoking, the company's cigarette sales continue. Philip Morris racked up $3.9 billion in sales in 2003.

"People still smoke. We compete vigorously for adult smokers," said Farriss.

Another questioner suggested selling cigarettes was an irresponsible act, regardless of the responsible approach.

"As long as people smoke, we'll be in this business," Farriss said. "Exiting the (cigarette) business wouldn't be responsible. As long as people smoke, somebody will fulfill (the need). It wouldn't decrease demand."

Phillip Morris PR says gov't line

 

Tobacco settlement Gregoire negotiated not popular with all – WA, USA

By Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter

Attorney General Christine Gregoire is called tiger lady, the tobacco slayer, the woman who brought the cigarette industry "to its knees" for her role in negotiating a $206 billion settlement between tobacco companies and 46 states in 1998.

More than any other event in her career, the deal made Gregoire a heavyweight in Washington politics.

It's expected to deliver $4.5 billion to Washington over 25 years, with most of the money going toward health insurance for the poor. It also banned cigarette billboards and forbid cartoon ads aimed at children.

Yet six years after the paperwork was signed, a contentious debate over whether the settlement was a victory or a failure shows no sign of subsiding.

Critics, including some prominent public-health experts, say the agreement insulated tobacco companies from potentially crippling lawsuits and made the states dependent on money from cigarettes.

"The settlement agreement has been the absolute worst thing that has ever happened in tobacco control," says Michael Siegel, a physician and associate professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. "Essentially what [Gregoire] did was sign a tobacco-interest bailout."

But Gregoire also has admirers.

"Politicians often take credit for things they don't do

Settlement highlights
The 1998 tobacco settlement is expected to deliver $4.5 billion to Washington over 25 years, with most of the money going toward health insurance for the poor. The agreement included restrictions on the tobacco industry. Among other things, it:

• Forbids the industry from targeting youth in advertising, marketing or promotions.

• Bans the industry from actions aimed at starting, maintaining or increasing youth smoking.

• Limits tobacco companies to only one brand-name sponsorship per year.

• Prohibits sponsorship of team sports, such as baseball, football and basketball.

• Bans all outdoor advertising, including billboards, signs and placards in arenas, stadiums, shopping malls and video-game arcades.

• Prohibits payments to promote tobacco products in movies, television shows, theater productions or live performances.

• Bans the sale of products with brand-name logos such as caps, T-shirts and backpacks.

Source: State Attorney General's Office

Where the money goes
To date, the state has received $729 million from the tobacco settlement. Here's a breakdown of how the money has been spent:

• Tobacco-use prevention: $35 million.

• Money set aside for future prevention efforts, but not yet spent: $65 million.

• Money spent to pay debt on bonds secured by the settlement: $68 million.

• Money sent to health-services account: $561 million.

Source: State Office of Financial Management

The critics note:

• Tobacco-stock prices shot up after the settlement, an indication that it strengthened the industry. And despite the advertising restrictions, experts say young people are still exposed to a flood of tobacco ads.

• The agreement has made states so dependent on tobacco-settlement money that attorneys general have gone to the aid of the tobacco industry in court when a jury verdict threatened industry payments to the states.

• A major piece of the settlement fought for by Gregoire — a foundation created to do national anti-tobacco advertising — is running out of money because of an obscure clause in the settlement that let tobacco companies cut off funding in 2003.

Gregoire has ridden a wave of glowing publicity for her role in forging the agreement and mentions it frequently in her campaign speeches.

It "achieved the largest settlement, it achieved holding [tobacco companies] accountable, it achieved a change in their conduct and it did achieve historic reductions in youth smoking," Gregoire said in a recent interview.

Her campaign has received more than $100,000 from attorneys on both sides of the tobacco war, including law firms that earned millions of dollars from the settlement. The lead negotiator for tobacco companies, Meyer Koplow, held a fund-raiser in New York that Gregoire attended.

William Leedom, a Seattle attorney who worked on the litigation with Gregoire, says, "She worked, I swear, 20-hour days trying to get this done. And it's been a great benefit not only to our state, but every state."

Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston who worked on tobacco litigation, also credits Gregoire for working hard on the settlement. "I think [Gregoire] did very well for the state of Washington, given the hand she had to play," he says.

But Daynard is disappointed by what the settlement achieved nationally.

"It didn't achieve much for public health, and it didn't do much to rein in the tobacco industry," he says. "Those were supposed to be the points."

Mississippi was first

Chart the states' court fight with Big Tobacco on a timeline, and Gregoire's star role comes near the end. Michael Moore's starts at the beginning.

Moore, as Mississippi's attorney general, filed the first state lawsuit against tobacco companies in May 1994. He partnered with private attorneys and sued for almost $1 billion the state said it spent treating people who became ill from smoking.

Moore envisioned other states would join the fight and force Big Tobacco into a national settlement. But at first, he says, other state attorneys general "thought I'd lost my mind." Cigarette companies had never been beaten in court. It took a year and a half for Moore to persuade four other states to join — West Virginia, Minnesota, Florida and Massachusetts.

For many other state attorneys, the tipping point came in March 1996, when Liggett, maker of L&M and Eve cigarettes and the smallest of the major tobacco companies, agreed to settle with the early states. "No [tobacco] company had settled with anybody, ever," Moore says. "That added tremendous momentum to the cause."

Liggett agreed to hand over sensitive documents and to testify in court. Shortly afterward, industry giant RJR Nabisco indicated the industry would consider settling. Over the next eight months, Washington and 13 other states joined the litigation.

Moore asked Gregoire to join the team crafting a national settlement. In early 1997, the team proposed a $368 billion deal that included large payouts to states, restrictions on tobacco advertising and regulation by the Food and Drug Administration. In return, cigarette companies would get immunity from certain lawsuits.

But the proposal required approval of Congress, where it ran into intense opposition. When it fell apart entirely the following year, Gregoire emerged as a central player.

Her office contacted Koplow, lead attorney for the tobacco companies, about settling Washington's case alone. But the industry was not eager to strike deals with individual states, particularly states such as Washington whose cases were not the most threatening.

"The Washington case was not one of the scarier cases," Koplow says. "It had what the industry considered a fairer jury pool and fairer judges."

Koplow recalls: "I said to Gregoire, 'Look, the industry is not interested in settling these cases on a one-off basis. If we could find a way to put together something that would settle either all or most of the cases, then we'd be prepared to do something.' "

Gregoire contends Washington did not have a weak case but says it was in the public's interest to have a national settlement.

"What good would it do for me to take down all the [tobacco] signs in Washington state and have them all up in Idaho?" she says.

She put together a new negotiating team to craft a states-only settlement that didn't need congressional approval.

Meanwhile, the states' bargaining position had eroded further, in part because they couldn't offer the type of immunity Congress could provide, and the industry had settled with four states that had worrisome cases, including Mississippi.

The agreement

Gregoire worked with attorneys general from California, New York, North Carolina and other states in a marathon round of meetings. She focused on health issues, such as curtailing youth-oriented cigarette advertising.

She also worked to set up an education fund, later named the American Legacy Foundation, to do national anti-smoking advertising. Gregoire is largely credited with creating the foundation, which was to be funded at about $350 million annually for at least the first few years.

An agreement between the states and the industry was announced in November 1998. Washington began receiving money from the settlement in late 1999.

Of the $729 million Washington has received since then, about $561 million has helped pay for health insurance for the poor. An additional $100 million has been earmarked for tobacco-use prevention efforts, of which $35 million has been spent.

Because of the recession, state programs, such as the Basic Health Plan (BHP), have had to cut the number of people served in recent years.

"If it wasn't for the tobacco money, I don't know what would happen to BHP," Gregoire says.

A good deal?

Gregoire contends the settlement "opened a floodgate" of civil lawsuits against tobacco companies by providing legal theories and sensitive documents not previously available. But critics say the agreement helped the industry by eliminating the cloud of uncertainty the state lawsuits represented.

Cliff Douglas, a Michigan attorney involved in tobacco litigation, says the settlement did little to help fight the industry; in fact, he says, cigarette firms often try to use the agreement as a defense.

And many observers note that after the settlement was signed, tobacco-stock prices jumped. "If this is such a big win for the people against big tobacco, why did their stock shoot up into the sky?" says Michael Horowitz, an attorney and director of Project for Civil Justice Reform at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank.

Philip Morris, which had been trading as low as $35 a share earlier in 1998, reached a high for the year of almost $58 a share within days of the deal being struck.

The $206 billion payout, although large, did not harm the cigarette industry, says Douglas, president of Tobacco Control Law & Policy Consulting in Ann Arbor, Mich. "All they had to do was raise prices on cigarettes and recover it."

Gregoire points to the agreement's widespread impact on advertising, noting for example that it removed cigarette ads that once appeared on New York skyscrapers. But the industry didn't stop advertising. From 1998 to 2001, the most recent year available, it raised its marketing budget to a record $11 billion. The industry is putting money into new forms of promotions, says Ronald Davis, former director of the federal Office on Smoking and Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The nation's youth "are still being heavily exposed," he says. "Some of the themes used in cigarette advertising are every bit as youth-oriented as they have been in the past even without Joe Camel."

Running out of money

In the meantime, the American Legacy Foundation, seen by many as a way to counter tobacco marketing with its own national anti-smoking commercials, is running out of money.

A provision of the settlement, little noted at the time, allowed the companies that settled to stop making payments if their combined share of the tobacco market dropped below 99.05 percent. Their market share did drop, and the industry made its final payment to the group's education fund last year.

"It was a huge blunder," says Glantz, the University of California researcher. "The problem of smoking and smoking-induced disease continues. The Legacy foundation is radically scaling back their activities as a result of just hitting this wall."

Gregoire says no one could have predicted the tobacco companies that settled would lose market share. Research showed it had never dropped significantly in the past.

One of the things critics of the settlement complain about most is what Glantz calls a "twisted partnership" between the industry and states now dependent on its money.

State attorneys general have come to the aid of the tobacco industry in court, Glantz and others say.

In 2003, Philip Morris lost a case in Illinois and was ordered to put up a $12 billion bond in order to appeal. Gregoire and other state attorneys argued on behalf of the tobacco company that the bond was too high and could jeopardize payments to the states.

Gregoire says the states aren't cozy with tobacco and have gone after the industry repeatedly. In the Illinois case, she says she made the right decision.

"What happens if they post a $12 billion bond and go into bankruptcy?" she says. "They don't have to make the payments any more. They win. They'd keep producing the product. They'd be off scot-free. I'm not going to let them off."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002053360_gregoire04m.html

 

Yonkers man convicted in illegal cigarette trafficking sting

A Yonkers man has pled guilty to attempted criminal possession of a forged instrument in the first degree, for purchasing over $250,000 of cigarettes from several undercover officers believing that the cigarettes he purchased possessed counterfeit tax stamps.

Cigarettes bearing counterfeit tax stamps are purchased below market cost set by New York State and in turn are sold to cigarette retailers at either a reduced price or regular price. Sales of the illegal cigarettes results in hugh profits and deprive New York State of tax revenues.

in addition to the arrest of the 50-year-old Nagi Alkaifi, his license to sell cigarettes from his businesses, Yemen Discount Store and Yemen Tobacco and Candy, both in Yonkers, has been terminated.

When sentenced in December, Alkaifi faces up to seven years in state prison.

http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/Cigarette_stamps-03Oct04.htm

 

Poll: Smokers support smoking ban
Tuesday,October5,2004,11:06 AM

AUGUSTA (AP) - Even smokers like the smoke-free air in bars.

That's according to a survey commissioned by the Maine Coalition on Smoking or Health.

The coalition has released the results of a survey of 600 Mainers taken on September 23 to gauge their sentiments on the law that bans smoking in bars, taverns and pool halls.

The survey shows that 76 percent of all respondents support the law, while 54 percent of smokers said they liked the ban.

When the ban went into effect, just 40 percent of smokers favored the law.

http://www.wmtw.com/Global/story.asp?S=2389657

 

College of Charleston to consider smoking ban CHARLESTON, S.C

Associated Press
. - The College of Charleston is considering a smoking ban in residence halls and other places on the downtown campus.

The new smoking policy would divide the campus into smoking and nonsmoking areas. The student government association is scheduled to vote on the change later this month, and if approved, the proposal would move to the faculty senate and then to president Lee Higdon for final approval.

Higdon favors the change, but wants it "to come from the students," said Laura Lindroth, health educator with Counseling and Substance Abuse Services on campus.

Less than half of the college's roughly 10,000 students smoke and at least 43 percent have smoked a cigarette in the past month, Lindroth said.

But some smoking students don't like the idea.

http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/local/9841267.htm

 

Aspirin can protect you from prostate cancer, and some other cancers

05 Oct 2004

According to research carried out at the Fox Chase Cancer Center, regular use of aspirin or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) seems to reduce the risk of developing various cancers, including prostate cancer.
Now it appears that such drugs may help men with prostate cancer live longer.
"NSAIDs have been associated with reductions in the risk of developing various gastrointestinal cancers and improvement in their treatment outcomes," said the study's lead author, Fox Chase radiation oncologist Khanh H. Nguyen, M.D. "However, any impact NSAIDs may have on treatment for prostate cancer has been unclear. We wanted to see if patients who used these drugs regularly before their diagnosis and treatment gained any benefit."
The Fox Chase study involved 1,206 men who had definitive radiation therapy for localized prostate cancer. The researchers compared long-term treatment outcomes of 232 patients who had used NSAIDs regularly before treatment with the outcomes of the 974 men with no history of regular NSAID use. Other characteristics, such as smoking, were balanced between the two groups. The follow-up period averaged more than four and a half years.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=14498

 

Former doctor for Big Tobacco gives students the straight goods

By JOANNA MECHLINSKI , The Bristol Press 10/05/2004

BURLINGTON -- In 1980, Dr. Victor DeNoble already knew nicotine was addictive. The problem was, the tobacco industry didn’t want to eliminate the one ingredient that made consumers crave their product because it would have to admit causing years of health hazards. The more the scientist fought to be heard, the more the industry struggled to silence him.
DeNoble, whose story was the basis for the 1999 movie "The Insider" and John Grisham’s novel "The Runaway Jury," spoke to Har-Bur Middle and Lewis S. Mills High School students Monday morning.

scientist speaks

 

---

Breast cancer and diet, is there a link?

04 Oct 2004

Dr Norman Boyd, an oncologist at the Ontario Cancer Institute is in his last year of studying whether there may be a link between less dietary fat and a lower risk of developing breast cancer. Dr Boyd started his study ten years ago. His plan was to collect data on thousands of women who were at risk of getting breast cancer, getting them to cut out a lot of fat from their diets, and then see how many of them went on to develop breast cancer.
He got the idea for this study many years ago when he noticed that breast cancer rates in Japan were lower than in Europe and N America. He wondered whether it may have been due to a difference in the amount of fat women ate – in Japan their consumption of dietary fat was much lower.
Boyd then said "When people migrate from Asia to North America, their rates change. So clearly, there is something in the environment that is affecting rates. If we can identify that, and change it, then we can prevent the disease."
Dr Boyd also noticed that you can modulate the frequency with which mammary tumors develop by diet in small animals. In order to see whether it was the same with humans, Boyd started a study with 4,700 women. All these women have a higher than normal risk of developing breast cancer. He has been studying them for a good part of a decade – observing their eating habits, comparing mammogram results and monitoring a whole range of factors.
All the women are aged between 30 and 65, none is pregnant, none is breastfeeding, none has ever had any type of cancer before. The women are observed – they just carry on eating in the way they usually do (most of them, read below). What they do have in common is that they all have a higher breast tissue density. The higher your breast tissue density the higher your chances are of developing breast cancer.
Then the women were placed on two types of diets. 50% went on a regular diet while the other half had to make sure their fat intake did not exceed 15-20% of their total calorie consumption.
Dr Boyd is into the last year of his study. He has found that the ones on a lower fat intake have lower breast tissue densities when compared to the women who were on a regular diet. He has yet to find a link between breast cancer link and diet – we don't know whether there is a link because he has not revealed that information yet.
Many health experts are say that the type of dietary fat may be a important factor here, rather than the total fat intake. They say that a woman who consumes lots of saturated fats (animal fats, butter, etc) may have a different risk than a woman who consumes lots of ‘good fats' (olive oil, almonds, avocado, etc).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=14404

 

Dirty river linked to cancer  -China

2004-10-04 16:15:10   BEIJING (Xinhuanet) –

At least 20 villages along the middle reaches of the Shaying River, the largest branch of the heavily polluted Huaihe River, have been plagued by cancer for more than 10 years.

    According to investigations by Huo Daishan, director of the research center of the Huaihe River environment, the number of cancer patients is increasing in more than 20 villages in Shenqiu County of central China's Henan Province alone.

    Huangmengying, a village of 2,400 people in the county, has seen 114 deaths caused by cancer in the past 14 years. On September 1 alone, three villagers died of the disease, following five cancer-related deaths since July 1. Another 10 villagers have been diagnosed with cancer.

    Wang Linsheng, an official with Huangmengying, said that more and more people there began to suffer from colonitis, rectum cancer or esophageal cancer since the water in the Shaying River turned dark and odorous in the 1990s.

    Kong Heqin, a rectum cancer patient for four years, said that she had been feeling sick ever since she married and moved to Huangmengying 10 years ago.

    "I never went to hospital before my marriage," she said. "But now, I've borrowed nearly 70,000 yuan (US$8,434) to pay for my disease. I would have committed suicide long ago if someone would have cared for my two children."

    Villagers call the 200-meter-long street where Kong lives "cancer street." Six residents there died of cancer in recent years, and two others currently suffer from the disease.

    Although Shenqiu is one of China's most impoverished counties, sales of barreled purified water in the village flourished.

    Li Hua, manager of a grocer, sells dozens of barrels each day. But he fails to benefit much from the booming sales.

    "It is very hard for the low-income farmers here to afford purified water every day. They often buy water on credit and delay the payment for a long time," he said.

    Purified water means life or death to the 26-year-old Meng Qingkun, who got spondylitis, an inflammation of the vertebrae, in 2002. Doctors told him to move out the village because his disease was caused by the heavy metals in the drinking water. But Meng chose to stay where he is for he has lost ability to work and "spent all his money on purified water."

    China has spent huge sums of money in the past 10 years in an effort to relieve and prevent severe pollution in the Huaihe River, but little progress has been made.

    Liu Jiaqiang, director of the Environmental Protection Bureau with Shenqiu County, said that groundwater in all the 21 towns in Shenqiu has been polluted by the Shaying River, which receives vast amounts of sewage from the cities along its upper reaches.

    Thanks to Huo and his fellow staff's efforts, the regional government undertook an investigation in July and has allocated funds to dig a deep well for the village.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-10/04/content_2051295.htm

 

Witness denies knowledge of tobacco data destruction

By Nancy Zuckerbrod Associated Press

WASHINGTON — A longtime lawyer for major cigarette manufacturers testified yesterday that government lawyers got it wrong when they speculated he would testify he knew firsthand that the industry had destroyed documents.

Justice Department lawyers had written in a court filing that Robert Northrip would say he knew that documents central to a lawsuit in Australia were destroyed. The suit involved an Australian subsidiary of British American Tobacco Co., which also owned Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., the Louisville company that merged into Reynolds American.

But when Northrip took the stand yesterday in the government's $280 billion racketeering case against the industry, he said he first heard the allegations about document destruction when they became public as part of the court decision against the Australian company two years ago.

He also filed a document with the U.S. court last week saying the government was wrong to speculate he knew about document destruction in the Australia case.

Justice lawyers declined to comment yesterday.

The Australian court decision had named Northrip as one of several people who might be "likely to know whether such documents were destroyed."

David Bernick, who represents B&W, said the government lost this round.

"I think he was supposed to be the key witness for them," Bernick said.

Northrip also faced questions about an industry memo indicating he advised tobacco executives to destroy research showing cigarette additives were harmful. He testified that he told his clients only that they could destroy data about additives that were tested but not ultimately used in cigarettes.

The government contends the industry lied about nicotine's addictive nature, and Justice lawyer Sharon Eubanks asked Northrip about a statement on addiction that he wrote.

The statement, which Northrip referred to yesterday as a think piece, characterized smoking as a habit rather than addiction and said, "Statements in company documents cannot refute this conclusion."

http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2004/10/05/D2-tob05-3294.html

 

Mom's Smoking May Increase Colic Risk In Babies

POSTED: 2:49 pm EDT October 4, 2004

CHICAGO -- Researchers say mothers who smoke during or after pregnancy increase their babies' risk of developing colic.

The new studies show nicotine may increase blood levels of a protein that affects digestion -- resulting in painful cramping that makes babies cry.

The data suggest that, compared with nonsmokers, mothers who smoke during pregnancy face about double the risk of having infants with colic. Preliminary research shows secondhand smoke may also be a factor.

The inconsolable crying spells known as colic can affect up to 20 percent of babies in their first months of life.

Experts from Brown University and Harvard University reached the conclusion after reviewing studies involving more than 12,000 babies. The report appears in the October edition of Pediatrics.

Study Abstract

http://www.nbc17.com/health/3781853/detail.html

 

Judge Weighs Limit on Tobacco Trial Submissions

By Peter Kaplan Mon Oct 4, 2004 06:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The judge overseeing the $280 billion racketeering case against cigarette makers complained on Monday that U.S. government lawyers were inundating her with material from previous cases and said she was considering setting limits.

As the third week of the landmark trial began, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler expressed concern the record of the case could become "bloated" with testimony and exhibits from previous lawsuits against the industry.

"I could let everything under the sun into the record...," Kessler told attorneys. "I'm not going to do that."

Justice Department attorney Stephen Brody said the huge volume of evidence was necessary, and he urged the judge not to impose any further limits.

"To suggest that there be an artificial limit on what can come in will severely prejudice the (government's) presentation of its case in the way that we had planned," Brody said.

Kessler said she is considering limits on the number of transcripts and exhibits each side would be allowed. "I am very close to doing that at this point," she said.

Kessler said she expected to rule on what changes she will make, if any, by early next week.

The government suit, launched in 1999, targets Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA unit; Loews Corp.'s Lorillard Tobacco unit, which has a tracking stock, Carolina Group ; Vector Group Ltd.'s Liggett Group; Reynolds American Inc.'s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco unit and British American Tobacco Plc unit British American Tobacco Investments Ltd.

The government charges cigarette makers lied and tried to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking as part of a 50-year industry conspiracy.

The tobacco companies deny they conspired to promote smoking and say the government has no grounds to pursue them after they drastically changed marketing practices as part of a 1998 settlement with state attorneys general.

The judge said some of the material was redundant and unenlightening. "I thought the time that I spent on the (initial) transcript was virtually a waste of my time," Kessler said.

Brody reminded Kessler of how sweeping the government's case is. "It's 50 years. It's a pervasive fraud which we allege impacted every aspect of the defendants' businesses," he said.

David Bernick, a lawyer representing Brown & Williamson, agreed with Kessler and said limits would be justified.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=6409937

 

RICO stretch is dangerous

The federal government seems willing to use any tool it takes, even an illegitimate one, to squash tobacco companies.
While many may applaud the fact, they shouldn’t. Those who have something to lose include all citizens.
What is going on right now is a $280 billion suit that could bankrupt the tobacco industry — or at least major segments of it — if the Justice Department is successful.
The tool of choice is the Racketeers Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act, a loosely framed, gotcha piece of legislation adopted in 1970 to ease the way of cops and prosecutors in putting mobsters behind bars.
That act, best known as RICO, has been hugely successful, and it is easy to see why: Among its many trespasses of normal legal protections, the law defines it as racketeering — usually thought of as a continuously illegal business — when two crimes are committed by the same group over a 10-year period.
For law enforcement officials, the law has been a joy. For gangsters, it has been something to dread.
Should tobacco companies now have to dread it, too? No one can argue that the duplicitous behavior of some tobacco executives was anything but awful.
Even the tobacco companies don’t argue their past virtue anymore, although their lawyers are given to euphemisms — “mistakes” is a word they embrace — when discussing the topic.
But the reprehensibility of big tobacco does not entitle the government to use a bad law that was intended for something else entirely to wreck the industry, least of all when other facts are considered: The federal government was actually complicit in some of the practices now regarded as fraudulent; the public by and large knew of the dangers of smoking cigarettes; the industry is legal; it reached a $206 billion settlement with all but four states just six years ago; and it has been going the extra mile since then to warn people about its product’s health hazards.
There are other ways — legitimate ways — in which tobacco can be closely regulated or even outlawed, if that is what our democracy chooses.
When the government abuses its powers in an instance like this and gets away with it, every institution, every person is more at risk; legal safeguards have been diminished for everyone.
The end, in short, does not justify the means.

http://www.rockdalecitizen.net/sc/archive/2004/5347.htm

 

*buyout will be funded by smokers, an expense passed onto tobacco customers

A buyout, but no FDA regulation?

Senior tax writer in House offers tobacco compromise that scraps Senate 'marriage'

BY PETER HARDIN

TIMES-DISPATCH WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT Oct 5, 2004

WASHINGTON Tobacco farmers would win a $10.1 billion buyout, while cigarette companies would avoid broad new federal regulation under a compromise bill proposed yesterday by the senior tax writer in the House.

Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., proposed the buyout to be funded by tobacco companies as he also set aside a Senate-passed plan for Food and Drug Administration authority over tobacco manufacturing and sales.

Thomas is chairman of the House-Senate conference committee on an underlying corporate tax package, and his compromise proposal for the entire bill carries great weight. It's the bill that lawmakers will try to amend. Time is short; Congress intends to adjourn at week's end.

The Senate voted 78-15 in July for a "marriage" of the tobacco regulation and $12 billion in farmer relief. Thomas' compromise plan could bring a quick breakup of the twinned issues of regulation and relief, probably preceded by a fight.

Some key senators have raised the possibility of a floor filibuster to keep new FDA controls tied to a buyout for the nation's tobacco farmers.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., and an FDA champion, "is reserving all his options," his spokesman said. "He's ruled nothing in nor out. This action seriously jeopardizes the possibility of this tax bill passing the Senate."

Key House GOP leaders, including the majority leader, Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, vigorously oppose FDA regulation of cigarettes. DeLay, a conferee, and allies have taken the battle in support of a buyout only as the House voted earlier to the panel assigned to forge a compromise.

Virginia's No. 1 cash crop is tobacco. Its growers have appealed for relief from a price-support system they brand outdated and harmful to U.S. leaf competing in a global marketplace.

Richmond-based Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest cigarette maker, joined with leading public-health groups in what once would have been an unimaginable alliance to press hard for FDA regulation plus a buyout.

Rival companies, including No. 2 cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., have plunged into an intensive Washington lobbying fight among industry stalwarts. They accused Philip Morris of attempting to lock in a competitive advantage through FDA restrictions.

"We're disappointed FDA is not in" Thomas' proposal, "but there's a lot left to be said here," commented John F. Scruggs, vice president of government affairs for Altria Group Inc., parent company of Philip Morris.

The underlying corporate tax legislation is aimed at eliminating a U.S. tax break that world trade courts ruled an illegal export subsidy, and replacing it with a tax cut for American manufacturers.

The buyout would end the Depression-era tobacco price-support program and pay owners for their asset of quota, a license dictating how much leaf a farmer may grow.

Under the proposal announced yesterday, quota owners would be compensated at a rate of $7 per pound and tobacco growers at a rate of $3 per pound, over 10 years. When the House passed its version of the corporate tax overhaul this summer, it included a $9.6 billion, taxpayer-funded buyout.

Yet the net payout to tobacco farmers would be closer to a total $7 billion than $10.1 billion under Thomas' proposal, a tobacco industry source said, because the tobacco companies would no longer be required to make Phase II payments.

Phase II is the national farmer's trust negotiated by cigarette makers and tobacco-growing states to compensate growers for lost income after the 1998 multistate tobacco settlement.

Tobacco proposal

 

---

Formula One is smoking in 2004

By Crikey sports editor Patrick “don’t blow smoke in my face” Fitzgerald

Tobacco sponsorship is wreaking havoc on the 2004 Formula One circuit.

The Formula One 2004 calendar has been announced and the Canadian Grand Prix has been dropped following changes to the country’s tobacco laws that were unacceptable to the sport.
Bernie Ecclestone the diminutive (read incredibly stroppy) Formula One boss is playing hard-ball as he struggles with wider restrictions coming into play in a sport that massively depends on tobacco sponsorship.  But sport’s biggest runt is still having some wins even while butting out the Montreal race.
The Belgian GP, dropped this season because of a tobacco advertising ban, is reinstated for 2004 after the Belgian parliament eased restrictions.  The race, scheduled for August 29 at Spa-Francorchamps, is presently listed as “provisional” pending parliamentary ratification of the tobacco law.  Likewise the troublesome French Grand Prix, scheduled for July 11 at Magny-Cours, is also subject to a contract being signed.
But the really good news for a sports that was feeling a bit punch drunk at the end of the 2002 season, but is now back on track with an ultra competitive season playing out, is the arrival of China and Bahrain on the calendar.
The Grand Prix of Bahrain will be run April 4, the third round of the 17-race series. The Chinese Grand Prix in Shanghai will be the fifteenth race of the season on September 26.   Shanghai has signed up to host the event from 2004 to 2010.  However both of these races are subject to the new tracks still under construction, passing inspections by the world governing body.
But it is the new frontier offered by the $US240 million Shanghai circuit which will hold 200,000 spectators and is due for completion in March 2004, that has Bernie jumping up and down in his high heels.
Certainly he’s gung ho (or is that ging seng) on this potent new addition to his racing season.  He sees China bringing many ten of millions of new fans to a sport heavily dependent on advertising - by tapping into the country's 1.3 billion population, where there are no concerns over tobacco laws.  Melbourne also gets to flout Australian tobacco laws by special dispensation at its Australian Grand Prix which is set down for March 7 and remains the opening race of the season.
It will be interesting to see when AVESCO who are also holding their first international V8 Supercars race outside Australia at Shanghai in 2004, schedule their event?  Allowing for the circuit being ready it would greatly surprise if they don’t go for an earlier date than September 25, if Bernie hasn’t screwed the Chinese to force them to race later, purely for the bragging rights as the first international motor sport to race in China.
In other major motor sport development the ailing CART that runs the CHAMP series that is the international race staged as the Gold Coast Indy 300 has been thrown a lifeline with a fire sale of its business to a consortium of extremely rich individuals who promise the new CHAMP series to arise Phoenix like from its ashes has earmarked the Surfers Paradise street circuit as the “jewel in its crown”.  That’s easy to say when it is but it’s not the Gold Coast race that is CHAMP’s problem.  It’s the sports continues to present a bleak future and one I shall further analyse next week before we all go crazy in anticipation of the Sydney Swans.
Meanwhile the Crikey petrol heads can get their kicks live, or via the remote controls via a feast of the big V8 Supercars this weekend that sees the welcome return of the Sandown Enduro 500.  With two AFL finals to boot tonight (go Bombers) and tomorrow night (go Lions) and most of Sunday to showcase the V8 brutes, the two Kerries must be wondering what has happened to their stranglehold on big sport?

http://www.crikey.com.au/columnists/2003/09/12-0001.print.html

 

Health groups want intervener status in Saskatchewan smoking appeal case

Oct. 2, 2004 Provided by: Canadian Press

REGINA (CP) - Health organizations have asked for a voice when the Supreme Court of Canada rules on Saskatchewan's controversial attempts to limit cigarette advertising.

The Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Lung Association, the Canadian Medical Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada applied Friday for intervener status in the court battle between the province and tobacco company Rothmans, Benson & Hedges.

The organizations are hoping to convince the court to side in favour of a provincial ban that would prevent tobacco advertising in places where children might be present.

"Young people shouldn't grow up being exposed to addictive and lethal tobacco products, which are promoted and displayed in retail outlets in the same manner as hockey cards and bubble gum," said Rob Cunningham, senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society and one of the lawyers representing the health organizations.

Saskatchewan has been attempting to limit cigarette advertising to minors since March 2002 when the government passed its controversial Tobacco Control Act. In September 2002, Court of Queen's Bench upheld the legislation, but the decision was overturned a year later on appeal.

The Toronto-based tobacco company had argued that the legislation violates its rights to free expression as guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In addition, it claimed the Tobacco Control Act conflicts with federal legislation that allows a retailer of tobacco products to post signs to indicate the availability of tobacco products.

The Supreme Court is tentatively scheduled to hear the case Jan. 18, 2005.

Cunningham said the tobacco industry was fighting the legislation to protect its sales and to prevent similar legislation from being adopted in other provinces.

Manitoba and Nunavut have already adopted similar tobacco control laws, he said, and Prince Edward Island, Ontario and the Northwest Territories are also considering this type of legislation.

During the summer, the federal government and the provinces of British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island filed notices of intervention in the case with the Supreme Court of Canada.

 http://mediresource.sympatico.ca/health_news_detail.asp?channel_id=0&news_id=4917

 

National Health Organizations Apply to Intervene in Supreme Court of Canada Case to Support Precedent-Setting Tobacco Legislation

    OTTAWA, Oct. 1 /CNW/ - The Canadian Cancer Society, Canadian Lung

Association, Canadian Medical Association and Heart and Stroke Foundation of

Canada today are filing a motion for permission to intervene before the

Supreme Court of Canada.

    The motion to intervene is for a case the Supreme Court will be

considering about the validity of Saskatchewan legislation prohibiting tobacco

displays and signage in premises accessible to minors. The case name is

Government of Saskatchewan v. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and is tentatively

scheduled to be heard Jan. 18, 2005.

    "Young people should not be exposed to promotional displays for tobacco

products which are addictive and lethal," says Rob Cunningham, Senior Policy

Analyst, Canadian Cancer Society and one of the lawyers representing the

health organizations. "The tobacco industry is fighting the Saskatchewan

legislation to protect their sales and to prevent other provinces from

adopting similar legislation."

    In March 2002, precedent-setting Saskatchewan legislation came into force

to ban tobacco displays in premises accessible by minors. In an effort to

strike down this legislation, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges filed a constitutional

challenge with the Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench. In September 2002,

this Court upheld the legislation, but a year later this decision was

overturned on appeal. In October 2003, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled

that the ban of retail displays was in conflict with the federal Tobacco Act

and, as a result, was inoperative. The Saskatchewan government appealed the

case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where a decision is expected in 2005.

    Manitoba and Nunavut have adopted legislation similar to that in

Saskatchewan.

    "Tobacco is the leading cause of preventable death in Canada. Retail

displays are used by the tobacco industry to target and manipulate Canada's

youth. We must protect Canadians, especially our children, from inducements to

consume this deadly product," says Deirdre Freiheit, President & CEO of the

Canadian Lung Association.

    "Over a third of people who die from tobacco use will die from heart

disease or stroke," says Sally Brown, CEO of the Heart and Stroke Foundation

of Canada. "It's time we closed the door on this means of promotion. Retail

displays represent one of the remaining ways that tobacco companies directly

market to vulnerable groups: children and people who are trying to quit

smoking."

    "Canada's doctors are joining this intervention because tobacco kills our

patients. Initiatives restricting the promotion of tobacco products to our

kids are critical to ensure they are not seduced into this life-threatening

addiction," noted Dr. Albert Schumacher, President of the Canadian Medical

Association.

    During the summer, the federal government and the provinces of British

Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island

filed a notice of intervention with the Supreme Court of Canada in this case.

    If intervener status is granted, it will allow the four health groups to

argue before the Supreme Court in support of the Saskatchewan legislation.

 

    The Canadian Cancer Society is a national community-based organization of

volunteers whose mission is to eradicate cancer and enhance the quality of

life of people living with cancer. When you want to know more about cancer,

visit our website at www.cancer.ca or call our toll-free bilingual Cancer

Information Service at 1 888 939-3333.

 

    The Canadian Medical Association is the national voice of physicians in

Canada. Our mission is to serve and unite the physicians of Canada and be the

national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest

standards of health and health care.

 

    The Lung Association is a national not-for-profit organization dedicated

to improving the lung health of Canadians through research, prevention and

education. With a focus on the prevention and control of lung diseases such as

asthma and COPD, The Lung Association also offers help in the area of smoking

prevention, cessation and air quality. The Lung Association offers a toll-free

line at 1-888-566-5864 (LUNG) and our website at www.lung.ca.

 

    The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada (www.heartandstroke.ca) is a

leading funder of heart and stroke research in Canada. Our mission is to

improve the health of Canadians by preventing and reducing disability and

death from heart disease and stroke through research, health promotion and

advocacy.

 

 

For further information: contact: Rob Cunningham, Canadian Cancer

Society, (613) 565-2522, ext. 305, (613) 762-4624 (mobile); Carole Lavigne,

Canadian Medical Association, (613) 731-8610 ext. 1266,

carole.lavigne@cma.ca; Heather Rourke, Heart and Stroke Foundation of

Canada, (613) 569-4361, ext 318, hrourke@hsf.ca; Mary-Pat Shaw, The Lung

Association, (613) 569-6411 ext. 227, mpshaw@lung.ca

http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/October2004/01/c5926.html

 

Supporting the Tobacco Act and fighting tobacco advertising

On December 13 2002, the Quebec Superior Court delivered its judgement upholding the federal tobacco advertising restrictions and picture-based package warnings. The trial examined the validity of the Tobacco Act and certain regulations under that Act.

 

The case – heard in the Quebec Superior Court – involved Canada’s main tobacco manufacturers (Rothmans, Benson and Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corp.) and the federal government. The Canadian Cancer Society was granted intervener status for this trial.

 

The tobacco companies argued that the current restrictions in the Tobacco Act – specifically restrictions on tobacco advertising and promotion as well as the picture-based health warnings required on cigarette packages – violate their constitutional right to freedom of expression. They argued that tobacco advertising and promotion do not increase consumption and only affect market share among brands.

 

The federal government and the Canadian Cancer Society argued that there is overwhelming evidence that tobacco advertising does increase smoking and that the restrictions are a “reasonable” limit on the tobacco manufacturers freedom of expression under Section One of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Had they been successful, the tobacco manufacturers could have brought about an end to the effective restrictions placed on tobacco advertising and promotion laid out in the Tobacco Act, as well as the picture-based cigarette warnings. This would be a giant step backwards in Canada’s tobacco control efforts.

 

The judgment by The Honourable André Denis of the Quebec Superior Court upholding the federal tobacco advertising restrictions and picture-based package warnings is a victory for the health of Canadians.

 

Update (October 2003)

The tobacco companies appealed the ruling by the Quebec Superior Court. It is expected that the appeal will take place in September 2004. The Canadian Cancer Society is participating in the appeal.   

The Society's involvement

The Canadian Cancer Society participated in this trial with intervener status. 

 Read the executive summary of the Society’s final written argument.

 Read the Canadian Cancer Society’s full written argument.

 http://www.cancer.ca/ccs/internet/standard/0,2704,3172_334371__langId-en,00.html

 

Medical, Health, & Pharmacy Headlines

October 4, 2004

Welcome to Pharmacy-Network.org News

Generic drugs not cheap in Canada
Generic prescription drug prices in Canada are 30% higher prices are in eight other industrialized countries, including the United States, according to a Fraser Institute report released in August, the Washington Times reports... click link for more info.

Headlines from Medbroadcast (Canada)
2 American researchers win Nobel for studies of sense of smell
STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - American researchers Dr. Richard Axel and Linda Buck shared the 2004 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine on Monday for their work on the sense of smell - showing how, for example, a person can smell a lilac in the spring and recall it in the winter.

Asian death toll from bird flu reaches 31 as Indonesia deals with resurgence
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - The human toll from bird flu reached 31 on Monday when Thailand confirmed a nine-year-old girl died from the disease, while Indonesia announced it was among the countries still struggling with Asia's continuing outbreaks.

Headlines from Reuters Health News

Low-Income Cancer Patients Are Less Informed: Study
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Higher-income individuals with prostate cancer feel more informed about the disease and more satisfied with their treatment decisions than do their lower-income peers, new survey findings show.

Bird Flu Kills Nine-Year-Old Thai Girl, 31st Victim
BANGKOK (Reuters) - Asia's bird flu epidemic, which experts fear could spawn a human pandemic, has claimed its 31st victim, a nine-year-old Thai girl who had contact with infected chickens at home.

Headlines from New York Times

New Scrutiny of Drugs in Vioxx's Family
Now that Merck has removed Vioxx from the market, drugs in the same class - both available and awaiting approval - are undergoing renewed scrutiny.

 Drug doctors 'failed patients'
Seven doctors from a drug addiction clinic failed in their duty to their patients, a disciplinary hearing is told.
http://news.pharmacy-network.org/

 

Canadian Cancer Society supports U.S. initiative to place Canadian-style warnings on cigarette packages

U.S. push comes as federal government, Society prepare final trial arguments to support warnings
TRENTON, NJ, July 29 /CNW/ - The Canadian Cancer Society's Director of Public Issues, Ken Kyle, joined two U.S. Democratic Congressmen in New Jersey today in support of legislation that would place Canadian-style warning labels on cigarette packages in the U.S.
"Studies in Canada have shown that Canada's new picture-based warnings on cigarette packages are effective at discouraging smoking," said Kyle from a pharmacy in Trenton, NJ where the news conference was held to generate grassroots support for the legislation.
"The U.S. initiative is further proof that this precedent-setting move is being watched and adapted by the world. Brazil, for example, has already implemented Canadian-style warnings and countries within the European Union are looking into using similar labels," added Kyle.
Introduced in June 2001, the picture-based warnings have gained support from 76 per cent of Canadians, according a recent Environics Research Group national survey. In a different study, among those noticing the new warnings, 43 per cent of smokers say they have become more concerned about the health effects of smoking because of them and 44 per cent said the new warnings have increased their motivation to quit smoking.
Massachusetts Representative Marty Meehan is the lead sponsor and New Jersey Representative Rush Holt a co-sponsor of a bill introduced in the U.S. Congress last February that would place graphic warning labels on all tobacco products. The House Majority Leadership opposes the bill.

"We must break down the image of cool that tobacco companies have manufactured to peddle their poison," said Rep. Holt. He called on New Jersey pharmacy companies, many of which sell tobacco products in addition to medications, to participate in a local effort to place graphic tobacco warnings in the storefronts and behind the medicine counters of New Jersey's pharmacies.
"There are few public places more appropriate for combating Big Tobacco's advertising schemes than at the trusted neighbourhood pharmacies where New Jersey families get medical advice and buy medications. It is time to give tobacco the image it deserves," said Rep. Holt.
The U.S. initiative comes just prior to the final trial argument in Quebec Superior Court in which Canadian tobacco manufacturers argue that current Tobacco Act restrictions - namely the image-based package warnings and restrictions on tobacco advertising - are in violation of their constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Canada's main tobacco manufacturers, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., JTI-Macdonald Corp. and Imperial Tobacco Canada, contend that tobacco advertising and promotion do not increase consumption, and only affect market share among brands.
The federal government and the Canadian Cancer Society - which has intervener status in the trial - argue that there is overwhelming evidence that tobacco advertising does increase smoking and that the restrictions are a "reasonable" limit on the tobacco manufacturers freedom of expression under section 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The trial, which began last January, will hear closing arguments in September.
The Canadian Cancer Society is a national, community-based organization of volunteers whose mission is to eradicate cancer and to improve the quality of life of people living with cancer. For more information visit www.cancer.ca or call our national, toll-free, bilingual Cancer Information Service at 1888 939-3333.
For further information: For more background information or to arrange an interview with Mr. Kyle and/or Rep. Holt please contact: Natalia Williams/Janet Lee, Media Profile, (416) 504-8464, natalia@mediaprofile.com/janet@mediaprofile.com
(C) 2002 Canada NewsWire

http://envision.ca/templates/news.asp?ID=2535&pid=1

  

Updating BC Provincial Air Quality Objectives –

An Options Discussion Paper

- talks about using a risk based approach

http://wlapwww.gov.bc.ca/air/airquality/pdfs/aqo_paper.pdf

 

physicians for a smoke free Canada paper saying how to stop the tobacco industry

http://safework.ca/BigTobacco.pdf

News in brief from eastern Pennsylvania

10/4/2004, 2:31 a.m. ET

The Associated Press TAMAQUA, Pa. (AP) — A doctor is criticizing a state health department study that was prompted after three Rush Township residents came down with a rare blood disease.

Dr. Peter J. Baddick, who has raised concerns about other environmental issues, is questioning the study because he thinks it downplays environmental connections with cancer rates in northeastern Schuylkill County. The state conducted the study after three people acquired polycythemia vera.

"I think there is a cancer problem in this area. I think any doctor in this area will agree with me," Baddick said.

But Joel H. Hersh, director of the state's Bureau of Epidemiology, said the statistical survey, which will be discussed at a community meeting Wednesday, isn't necessarily the last word on the issue.

The study surveyed reported cancer cases in nine local zip codes. But Baddick said it failed to examine actual case histories and diluted findings by including an artificial "expected" number based on statewide cancer rates.

Baddick has compiled data of his own that he says shows cause for concern in two areas near a former Superfund site near Ben Titus Road in Rush Township.

study questioned  or

http://www.timesleader.com/mld/timesleader/9830617.htm or

http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/politics/9830617.htm

 

Posted at 7:50 pm by looped_ca
Make a comment