Comments

WHITEHORSE - Some bar owners in Whitehorse are refusing to fully comply with the city's new smoking by-law.

As of Jan. 1, bars were added to the list of places in the city where people are not allowed to smoke.

Jonas Smith runs the bar in the Capital Hotel, and is a director of the B.C./Yukon Hotel Association.

"Proprietors are supposed to inform people they are not allowed to smoke, and if that person fails to desist from smoking we are to report them to by-law, stop serving them, stop serving anyone procuring liquor for them and physically remove them from the premises," he says.

The city says it will be reminding bar owners about the by-law's rules over the month of January.

Health Minister John Nilson says he wants to clear the air about the smoking ban because bar and restaurant owners are still allowing patrons to light up.

The law went into effect five days ago and some business owners believe a 60-day grace period before tickets are issued means they don't have to enforce it yet.

Edmonton - The City of Edmonton is gearing up for a tough fight – making sure that patrons of bars, casinos and bingo halls comply with a no-smoking ban that takes effect in six months.

The city successfully enacted a no-smoking ban for restaurants 18 months ago, and issued fewer than 30 tickets. But bylaw enforcement spokesman David Aitken expects greater opposition to the latest bylaw.

"We do anticipate a tougher go of it, hence we've got a more comprehensive strategy to inform all the stakeholders of the upcoming changes," Aitken said.

City officials plan to meet later this month with operators of bars, casinos and bingo halls to discuss how to get smoking patrons to butt out.

Aitken says the city's strategy will include an ad campaign closer to the July 1 deadline.

"We believe a good communications plan, getting the word out early, talking to the bar owners, should go a long way into making a smooth change," he said.

WHITEHORSE - A Whitehorse restaurant owner is pursuing a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the city.

Paul Douglas, who once operated a coffee shop in Whitehorse, is suing over the city's smoking bylaw.

He claims it was implemented unfairly because it gave bar owners an extra year to comply. His business closed last year.

Douglas says business dried up shortly after the city implemented a public smoking ban for restaurants.

Douglas says if he wins even a small amount of damages, the city could be in for a major financial hit.

"It opens up a Pandora`s box for them, they could have every restaurant in town suing for lost profit revenue, whatever, for that year," he says.

"Did you know that the only place in all of Whitehorse where you can legally have a cigarette is at the Whitehorse General Hospital smoking room?

"Now if you can have a smoke there, why can't you have a smoke elsewhere like in a bar or restaurant for that matter."

Despite fighting the case with no lawyer, Douglas has now managed to get the case approved for trial.

REGINA – Saskatchewan Health Minister John Nilson wants to clear the air about the new provincial smoking ban – but some business owners say the government is being a little hazy.

Five days after the introduction of Saskatchewan's law, many bar and restaurant owners are still allowing patrons to light up.

Some say they feel they have that right after hearing the province won't be ticketing offenders for the first 60 days.

"Well is it a law right now?" asked Regina's Grady Schuett, one of the owners of the Bart's on Broad restaurant.

"They're not fining anyone. I think all of us are still kind of just up in the air and wondering exactly what is going on."

Although there are no ashtrays on the tables, Bart's is still allowing customers to smoke in a designated area.

But Nilson said while there is a grace period when a new law like this takes effect, if owners allow smoking, they are breaking the law.

"We have our enforcement officers who will be going around to the establishments to talk to people to find out... whether they understand how the law works and how it affects their business," he said.

If there are "major challenges" to the law, the government will look at those on a case-by-case basis, Nilson said.

Under the Tobacco Control Amendment Act, which took effect Jan. 1, smoking is banned in all enclosed public places such as restaurants, bars, bingo halls, casinos, bowling alleys, taxis, and private clubs.

REGINA – Despite what some people may believe, smoking in bars and other public places can still get you a ticket, Health Minister John Nilson says.

Last month, Nilson said he did not expect any tickets would be issued during the first two months of the provincewide ban.

As of Jan. 1, smoking in bars, restaurants and other indoor public places has been prohibited.

In the first week of 2005, a number of people continued to smoke in some of these facilities. Some proprietors and customers said they didn't think the ban was in effect during the first 60 days.

But earlier this week, Nilson said anyone who puffs away "blatantly" in banned areas can expect a ticket, even if two months have not yet gone by.

Nilson said his earlier comments were meant to let the public know there wouldn't be "a huge force" of public health inspectors out on Jan. 1.

The next step will be to issue a warning, with tickets being used only as a last resort, he said.

EDMONTON -- Bar owners never welcome smoking bans, but some bar owners in Lloydminster have a particular gripe -- the smoking ban only applies to half the city.

On Jan. 1, the Saskatchewan government's Tobacco Control Act came into effect, banning public smoking across the province.

In Lloydminster, a city of 21,000 divided by the Alberta-Saskatchewan border, the new law applies only on the east side of the line.

"I'm right on the border," said Vivian Hallwachs, owner of the Saskatchewan-side Scores Sports Bar. "We have six bars across the street from me.

"It's pretty easy for customers just to go across the street and drink and gamble."

"If the ban was right across the board then at least everyone would be in the same boat," he said.

Hallwachs, who said almost all of her customers smoke, said she and other businesses in her predicament have taken their case to the Saskatchewan government and the city of Lloydminster, to no avail.

One way to give all bars a level playing field would be to impose a citywide smoking ban, but Hallwachs thinks that's not going to happen. Last March, local smokers made their feelings known by presenting a 1,600-name petition to council opposing a smoking bylaw.

The bar owners' other option was to seek an exemption from the new law from the Saskatchewan government. In the past, the Alberta and Saskatchewan governments have worked out deals when conflicting laws would cause Lloydminster problems. Lloydminster businesses, for example, don't have to collect Saskatchewan's provincial sales tax.

However, the Saskatchewan government has refused to waive the smoking ban in Lloydminster.

Saskatchewan-side bars already are bound by the provincial drinking age of 19, a year older than in Alberta. But that difference is a minor problem compared with the smoking ban, said Hallwachs.

Roger Brekko, Lloydminster city manager, said city council feels it's in a "darned if you do and darned if you don't" situation. There's a larger business community on the Alberta side of town, he said, and introducing a smoking bylaw would irritate those business owners.

Alberta is the only province west of Quebec with no provincewide smoking ban in place or promised by the government.

Veronica Rhodes   Leader-Post Friday, January 07, 2005
      The government is going too far by not even allowing business owners to have matches or ashtrays in their establishments, says the owner of the Rouleau Hotel.
      Linda Cain does not agree with the smoking ban that came into effect Jan. 1, but her frustration multiplied after a visit from a tobacco enforcement officer this week.
      The officer completed a tobacco control report, which analyzed her business' compliance with the legislation. The report must determine if signs are properly posted, if there is no smoke present in the establishment and if there are no ashtrays or matches available.
      "The first item (on the report) 'no ashtrays, matches etc. are provided within an enclosed place'. Well, I sell cigarettes. I'm not allowed to give them a pack of matches to go with them?" said Cain.
      Requests for comment were directed to the Minister of Health, who was not available.
      Cain has taken all the ashtrays off the tables but still will give one to a customer if they ask for it. She said the officer warned her that if she continues to give out ashtrays and matches, she will face a fine.
      "That's pushing it a bit far. I'm not allowed to have matches or ashtrays or anything behind my bar," said Cain.

      Section 11.1 of the Tobacco Control Act states that "no ashtrays, matches, lighters or other things designed to facilitate smoking are provided in the enclosed public place". The Saskatchewan Health Web Site states that this portion of the Act is designed for "ensuring compliance with the no smoking rule".
      One Saskatchewan bar owner will not comply with the smoking ban and is letting his customers know why.
      Rob Joyal, owner of the Royal Hotel in Weyburn, said he has put an information card on each table in the bar, which explains to customers his reasons for not obeying the legislation.
      "All I want is to give us the option to put in a smoking room. If I have to spend $100,000, I'll do it. The smokers in the Royal Hotel are my best customers," said Joyal, who is a non-smoker.
      While he admitted the legislation is a great health initiative, he believes it is not fair to smoking customers that account for 30 to 40 per cent of business. Joyal said he also wants a level playing field amongst business owners in the province, which he said doesn't exist as long as First Nations are not required to comply with the ban.
      "I just cannot see how they can fine me and force this upon me when they are not doing the same thing at the Whitebear reserve," he said.
      Joyal said the health inspector in the region is aware of the Royal Hotel's lack of compliance with the legislation. When asked how long he plans to continue allowing customers to smoke in the bar, Joyal said he "won't lose his business over it."

Incentive to butt out-ON
      2005 Mustang first prize in Ontario Quit Smoking contest
      By Staff "The Paper" Feature
        If being forced to shiver outdoors to have a smoke isn't enough incentive to quit, then how about a brand new Ford Mustang?
        That's the grand prize in the Ontario Quit Smoking 2005 and the District Health Unit is urging smokers to try their luck by participating. The contest also offers the chance to win a new home theatre with surround-sound, OR 2005 Mustang (depending upon location).
        "The Contest is for daily smokers who are thinking about quitting,'" Janet Jackson, public health promoter with the Perth District Health Unit, said in a press release.
        "Many smokers have tried to quit before and the contest gives them added incentive to try again." Last year, there were 198 entrants from Perth County.
        Participants must go smoke-free from Feb. 1 to March 1 to be eligible to win. Participants must enlist a non-smoking buddy to help keep them on track when the going gets tough. The buddy is also eligible to win a $250 prize.
        "Making a plan and being prepared to quit smoking are key to success," said Ms. Jackson. Smokers should begin by thinking about why they smoke, why they want to quit and how they will cope with the urge to smoke. People planning to quit are advised to contact their family doctor, the health unit or the Smoker's Helpline.
        For daily smokers who are interested in quitting, the health unit is hosting two Quit Smoking Information sessions:
        The Quit Smoking 2005 contest is open to all Ontario residents who are daily smokers age 19 or older. For more information and to register, go to website. Registration forms are also available through the "LOCAL" District Health Unit, and the Outpatient Building,
        The Quit Smoking 2005 contest is funded in part by Health Canada and is supported by more than 70 local councils on smoking and health, and public health units throughout Ontario, with support from Pfizer Canada Inc., Pfizer Consumer Healthcare Division.
* THIS ad APPEARED IN SO MANY NEWSPAPERS WITH AREA INFO, I MADE A TEMPLATE

At a quick glance, Sheela Basrur doesn't appear to have an ounce of unwanted fat on her birdlike body. She's been doing yoga for a couple of decades, shuns elevators, has been working with a personal trainer and avoids eating sugar. In short, Ontario's Chief Medical Officer of Health is a role model for healthy living.

Yesterday, Dr. Basrur convened a news conference at a downtown Toronto hockey arena to spread the message that Ontario residents who lean more toward Homer Simpson's sedentary lifestyle (one of every two people) ought to reconsider their habits. She encouraged people to exercise and to eat sensibly as part of a "multi-sectoral approach" in which schools, municipalities, food manufacturers, urban planners and all levels of government get involved.

It's all terribly sensible stuff but it's bound to sustain the criticism that Dalton McGuinty's government is imposing a "nanny state" in Ontario. Consider that in its first year in office, the Liberals have banned junk food from schools, moved to outlaw smoking in public places and workplaces and proposed requiring students to stay in school until the age of 18 years and endure compulsory phys-ed classes.

The government is also criticized for a bill that would require adults to wear helmets when riding bicycles, but that is a private member's bill, so it is off the hook. On the horizon, however, are plans to introduce unspecified "character" education into the school curriculum so that students can pick up a community's values.

The opposition Progressive Conservatives fume about the intervention into the lives of Ontarians. (Not for them this healthy living stuff -- they served cheeseburgers and French fries at a news conference before Christmas.) Criticism even comes from the New Democratic Party, which has never been shy about telling people what to do. "You hear it everywhere: 'Get out of my face, stop telling me how to live, stop telling me what to think,' " said Leader Howard Hampton. "People do not want Dalton McGuinty or [Health Minister] George Smitherman telling them how they raise their kids, what values they should believe in or shouldn't believe in."

Dr. Basrur reacts like the civil servant she is when asked about whether she's pushing a nanny-state agenda. "Is that a political question?" she asks and then makes it clear she wants to answer from a public-health point of view, which is that smoking and obesity limit the quality and duration of people's lives.

"There are elements of individual choice in these matters, but individual choice is very much guided by environmental motivators and other factors," she said. In other words, you can choose to smoke, but we're going to make it as difficult as possible for you to light up anywhere but in your own home.

Mr. McGuinty bristles at the suggestion that his government's offensives against pit bulls and fresh sushi mean he is keen on social engineering. "Like allowing people to take a bottle of wine from home to a restaurant?" he said when the issue was raised last month. "Is that not liberating?"

Indeed, the nanny-state charges can't be sustained. Kids can remain free to stuff Doritos into their pie-holes, but there's no reason that schools should be complicit in this. The anti-smoking agenda is vengeful in the way it seeks to punish the addicted and spiteful in the way it deals with businesses that built special smoking rooms. But it's hard to argue with anything that will prevent a new generation from getting the habit. Character education? If it's handled as badly as the high-school civics classes mandated during the Mike Harris years, it will be a joke.

No, the real thread that unites these various initiatives is the fact that they are a bargain and, for a government struggling to balance the books, that's a bonus. Plus, some of these schemes have the kind of populist appeal that's not always obvious when Mr. McGuinty gets going about "reinventing" government. What's better fodder for radio talk shows -- pit bulls or democratic reform?

So, go ahead and ride a bike without a helmet and stock up on Twinkies. The nanny hasn't taken over yet.

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Canadian medical officers of health and anti-smoking advocates plan to file a ``legal action'' Monday seeking a ban on the advertising of ``light'' and ``mild'' cigarettes.

The legal action is ``an attempt to end the most destructive and deceptive trade practice in the history of Canadian business,'' the group said in a statement today from Ottawa.

The move follows an unsuccessful attempt by a coalition of anti-smoking groups to ban the labels. The coalition filed a complaint with the federal Competition Tribunal in June 2003, which hasn't been resolved.

At that time, Garfield Mahood, executive director of the Non- Smokers' Rights Association, said people mistakenly believe smoking light cigarettes lowers health risks. Mahood declined to comment on the latest action. The anti-smoking advocates plan to hold a press conference Monday to outline their complaint.

The necessary papers will be filed in an Ottawa court following the conference, Michelle Banning, a spokeswoman for the complainants, said in an interview. She said the group, which includes provincial medical officers of health, will not be suing cigarette companies. She declined to elaborate.

JTI-Macdonald Corp., whose brands include Export A Lights and Export A Milds, doesn't promote the brands as healthier alternatives to regular-strength cigarettes, John Wildgust, director of corporate affairs, said in an interview. JTI- Macdonald is a unit of Japan Tobacco Inc., the world's third biggest cigarette maker.

``Light and mild cigarettes, or reduced-tar and nicotine tobacco products, were introduced in the late '60s at the request of the federal government,'' Wildgust said. Surveys indicate that ``the vast majority of smokers are quite aware of the risks of smoking and people who are choosing to smoke light cigarettes are not doing this for a health benefit,'' he said.

Give smokers a break -ON
Letter to the editor
(Jan 8, 2005)
You wonder why smokers are so vehemently against the anti-smoking organizations. The Record's letters to the editor and a column provide agood answer.
On one day, Dec. 29, The Record ran not one, but two letters and a community editorial board column about smokers.
In one letter, Smoking Is Most Deadly Form Of Substance Abuse, Dr. Paul E.Garfinkel, the president of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, put
smokers in with heroin and crack addicts.

Actually, it's good The Record allows real feelings to show through because it enables readers to see that this issue is not about health but about control.
L. Duguay, Ontario

STEVE LAMBERT, Canadian Press 01/6/2005 18:45 EST

WINNIPEG (CP) - Manitoba's sweeping anti-smoking law is facing a constitutional challenge - one that will inevitably be watched by other provinces planning their own crackdowns on tobacco.

Art Stacey, a lawyer who represents a bar owner charged with violating the law, will argue the law is both outside of the province's jurisdiction and an infringement on his client's basic rights.

"We say that it really is in substance criminal law, and criminal law . . . is exclusively in the jurisdiction of the federal government," Stacey told The Canadian Press Thursday.

"So we'd say the province has no jurisdiction to pass this."

Stacey also argues the law violates section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that all individuals are equal under the law. Manitoba's smoking law does not apply to native reserves.

"That obviously creates a disadvantage for a lot of rural hotel and restaurant operators," Stacey said.

Stacey represents Robert Jenkinson, the owner of the Creekside Hideaway motel and bar in Treherne, Man., who faces 13 charges under the law.

Stacey said he will file notice of his constitutional challenge with the Crown in the coming days.

The Non Smokers Health Protection Act took effect October 1st, banning smoking in enclosed public places including bars and restaurants.

The law is part of a growing movement across the country. A smoking ban in New Brunswick took effect the same day as Manitoba's, while Saskatchewan went smoke-free on January 1st. Similar laws are pending in Newfoundland and Ontario.

The Manitoba law was immediately met with protests from bar and restaurant owners who feared it would drive customers away.

The Manitoba government decided to apply the law only in areas that are clearly under provincial jurisdiction, so native reserves, federal prisons, airports and military bases are exempt.

Rural bar owners have complained about the exemption for native reserves, fearing that many smokers will drive to restaurants or casinos on reserves in order to light up.

"(My client) is in Treherne, and . . . certainly there is a reserve at Swan Lake which is close by, and there are some licensed premises there," said Stacey.

Manitoba Healthy Living Minister Theresa Oswald was unavailable for comment Thursday, but has already said her government will fight to uphold the law in court.

An official with the Health Department said Thursday the law was checked for legal validity before it was tabled in the legislature.

"The government doesn't introduce legislation if it has an indication that it is unconstitutional," said Donna Hill, the acting assistant director of the department's legislative unit.

"Certainly there was no indication that this legislation was unconstitutional in any way."

The Opposition Conservatives said the government was wrong to exempt native reserves and should have expected a court battle.

"What Mr. (Premier Gary) Doer has done, in essence, is created a two-tier smoking policy," said Tory Leader Stuart Murray.

"I believe, and I think our party believes, that everyone should be treated equally."

Stacey and his client are due in court Monday, although a trial may still be months away.

The owners of one other business have been charged under the law. Finley Michaud and Leslie Dumas, who own a restaurant in Selkirk, Man., have not entered pleas and are due in court near the end of the month.

http://news.channels.netscape.ca/news/article.adp?id=20050106184809990011

Irish pub’s voluntary cigarette ban in Hong Kong may go up in smoke -Hong Kong
By Norma Connolly and Claire O’Sullivan 07/01/05
Irish pub’s voluntary cigarette ban in Hong Kong may go up in smoke
SOMETIMES you just can’t win.
An Irish pub in Hong Kong, which was acclaimed for voluntarily introducing a no-smoking ban, is facing prosecution for sending its smokers outside.
Months after the ban was introduced in Ireland, the enterprising owner of the Dublin Jack banned smoking in his bar seeing an opportunity to court non-smokers.
Dubliner Noel Smyth was lauded in Hong Kong newspaper editorials for his move but he has received a notice for intended prosecution because alfresco smokers are causing “obstruction to the pavement”.
The government’s food and environmental hygiene department issued the proceedings saying it had received seven complaints from local residents and passersby about the blockage caused by smokers sitting on chairs outside using ashtray-covered wooden barrels.
“It is very upsetting,” Mr Smyth has said.
“We are all for the smoke-free policy, but the government is not.
“People can stand outside bars, cafes and restaurants and smoke in Lan Kwai Fong; why can’t our customers?”
He admitted his “Kick Ash” policy could be in jeopardy.
Mr Smyth has said Hong Kong punters were pouring in to his three-level pub to sink his pints.
And Mr Smyth has reported a booming trade in the Asian version of the ubiquitous Chinese takeaway.
He sells takeaway Irish breakfasts, with bacon, sausages, eggs, mushrooms, tomatoes, beans and black pudding, from his bar.
“Being an Irish pub we’ve been looking for a gimmick,” said Mr Smyth.
“This is a promotion, a way of beating the competition.
“There are 100 licensed premises in the immediate vicinity here, so to a certain extent we’ve used the changes in Ireland as an excuse.
“It’s a commercial decision.”
In another twist to the pub’s stance against smoking, another government department has entered the fray.
The Health Welfare and Food Bureau (HWFB) has said they will give more slimline outside litter bins with ash trays to the bar to “facilitate” the pub’s no-smoking policy.
It is not clear yet whether the HWFB move will satisfy the hygiene department.
http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgH7Tg0NuEFJEsgHuTLc4nqWo2.asp

The shopkeeper who shot the knife-wielding man shrugged off talk that he was a hero - and put in a security barrier.

Ngoc Le's East Camden cell-phone and fishing-supply store reopened yesterday with a new feature: a thick Plexiglas security barrier walling off the sales counter.

The store had been closed since New Year's Eve, when Ngoc, 28, shot and killed a knife-wielding assailant who held a blade to his wife's throat.

The attacker turned out to be the serial rapist who had terrorized Camden's central business district, assaulting a high school student, a college student and a photo-store employee.

Ngoc had no way of knowing that the man who attacked his wife had raped three women, frustrated police, and badly shaken a reviving downtown community.

And the suggestion that Ngoc had been a hero drew no comment, only a slight shrug.

Ngoc and his wife, Kelly, who was working the sales counter yesterday, said they were fine and moving on with their business. While the store was closed, Ngoc had the security barrier installed, which he said "cost me a lot of money to put up."

He had no choice, he said. Ngoc, a Vietnamese immigrant, could not afford to give up a business he had owned for three years. He has begun a money-wiring service, and he said he planned to sell lottery tickets along with the admittedly odd combination of wireless equipment and fishing poles and nets.

In his three years at 27th Street and Westfield Avenue, Ngoc said, he had never been robbed, never had any problems.

Then Antonio Diaz Reyes, a 32-year-old who had lived in Philadelphia and Puerto Rico, entered the store. Ngoc was in the bathroom, and his wife was alone at the counter.

In each of the downtown rapes, the attacker had sought out women who were alone. In the last rape, he followed the lone employee of a photo store back inside after her cigarette break.

Reyes asked Ngoc's wife for a cellular-phone clip, Ngoc said. As she went to retrieve the item, Reyes jumped over the counter and grabbed her. Ngoc heard his wife call out his name.

Ngoc grabbed his gun - a legally owned .380-caliber pistol -and confronted Reyes, who was forcing his wife toward the back of the store with a knife at her throat.

"I told him to drop the knife and leave," Ngoc said. "Every time he pushed my wife, I backed up to another room."

Finally, Ngoc was nearly out of room. They had moved into a small living area at the back of the store, where Ngoc sometimes stays instead of driving home to Philadelphia. Reyes was four feet away, still holding the knife to Kelly Ngoc's throat.

Police noticed that Reyes fit the description of the downtown rapist. DNA test results released Wednesday were a "perfect match," authorities said.

Ngoc bought a newspaper Monday to learn more about the rapes, and a prosecutor called him Wednesday with the news of the DNA match.

While Ngoc shrugged off the idea that he had been a hero, another man behind the counter urged him to "wish good luck" to Reyes' victims.

Ngoc took the advice, wished the victims well, and said they "don't have to worry" about Reyes anymore.

Contact staff writer Troy Graham at 856-779-3893 or tgraham@phillynews.com. This article contains information from the Associated Press.

1/7/2005

Press Release
Institute for Social Research
University of Michigan
P.O. Box 1248
Ann Arbor, MI 48106
www.isr.umich.edu
Ann Arbor, MI - The proportion of 35-year-olds who abuse alcohol and use illicit drugs is higher than might be expected, a University of Michigan study shows.
More than 32 percent of men report heavy drinking-defined as having five or more drinks in a row-at least once in the past two weeks. Nearly 13 percent of men and 7 percent of women report using marijuana in the past month, and 7 percent of men and 8 percent of women report misusing prescription drugs in the past year.
The study, published in the January 2004 issue of the American Journal of Public Health, uses data on 7,541 respondents from the Monitoring the Future study funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and conducted annually at the U-M Institute for Social Research (ISR) since 1975. The men and women who graduated from high school between 1977 and 1983 were randomly selected after graduation to participate in follow-up surveys every two years.
"We found that substance use was surprisingly prevalent at the start of midlife," said Alicia Merline, an ISR researcher who is the lead author of the article. "And we also found that it is not restricted to stereotypical drug users with low socioeconomic status."
After controlling for gender, education and income, the researchers found that professionals are equally as likely to use marijuana as those in other job classifications. Nearly 10 percent of the 35-year-old males with professional jobs report having used marijuana in the past month, for example.
Merline and co-authors Patrick O'Malley, John Schulenberg, Jerald Bachman and Lloyd Johnston, all psychologists at the ISR, discovered a high level of stability of substance use over the 18-year time period covered by the follow-up study. "The foundation for later substance use is set for most people by the time they finish high school," Merline said.
The association between high school experience and cigarette smoking at age 35 is particularly strong, the researchers noted. Having even tried cigarettes at all before graduating from high school increases the odds of smoking at age 35 by more than 3 times the odds of those who had never tried cigarettes by their senior year.
The odds of smoking at age 35 were more than 12 times higher for participants who used cigarettes during the month prior to their twelfth grade survey than for those who had never smoked by their senior year. And the odds of smoking at age 35 were 42 times higher for those who were daily smokers during the twelfth grade than for those who had never smoked by their senior year.
Similar patterns were found for episodic heavy drinking, and for the use of marijuana and other illicit drugs. When compared with those who did not drink heavily as high-school seniors, participants who drank heavily had 3 times the odds of drinking heavily at 35 years of age. When compared with those who had not tried marijuana by the twelfth grade, individuals who had tried marijuana by the twelfth grade had 8 times the odds of using marijuana at age 35.
Those who had tried any illicit drug other than marijuana by their senior year had 5 times the odds of using cocaine and 3 times the odds of misusing prescription drugs at 35 years of age compared with those who had not.
But the researchers found that current demographic and socioeconomic factors also play an important role in adult substance use. Men and women who are currently married are much less likely to smoke, drink heavily, use marijuana or other illicit drugs or to misuse prescription medications than those who are single, divorced or separated.
While research on young adults has shown that college students drink more than their nonstudent peers while in college, by age 35 this pattern has reversed and college graduates are less likely to drink heavily than those who did not attend college.
The researchers also found that living with one's child, rather than just being a parent, was associated with lower substance use. Still, they found that a sizeable segment of custodial parents drink heavily or use illicit substances. For example, more than 29 percent of fathers whose children live with them report heavy drinking within the past two weeks.
Also, custodial parents are just as likely to smoke or misuse prescription drugs as those who have no children.

CONCORD — Contributions from lobbyists, special interests and other political activists will no doubt be a hot topic of discussion around the Statehouse in the next legislative session beginning next month.

Former House Speaker Gene Chandler’s very public failure to disclose monetary gifts from contributors has touched off a myriad of questions, investigations, finger pointing and calls for a revamping and reform of the political contribution system in New Hampshire. Elected officials are under a microscope and now the burden is on those same elected officials to address the concerns, confusion and calls for change from the people who put them in office.

Last month, the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee said Chandler violated the legislative ethics code by accepting "gifts" totaling more than $250 from those who may have interests before the Legislature. Also, the panel charged Chandler used his position as speaker to obtain the money and failed to comply with state law by not disclosing the gifts.

After a New Hampshire Public Radio reporter inquired about the Friends of Gene Chandler Committee in September, it was found the former speaker garnered about $64,000 in gifts from lobbyists and other special interest groups over a four-year period and had not filed a disclosure form. Chandler used the funds to off-set personal expenses arising from his duties as speaker, which pays $125 a year.

Following the controversy surrounding Chandler, the media spotlight was turned on Executive Councilor Ruth Griffin. The Portsmouth Republican and longtime councilor has taken in about $75,000 over the past five years through bi-annual testimonials thrown in her honor by her own Friends of Ruth Griffin Committee.

Like Chandler, Griffin used the money for clothes and maintenance for her car. Unlike Chandler, the Executive Council does not fall under the purview of the Legislative Ethics Committee. Gov.-elect John Lynch made a campaign promise to establish an ethics committee for the executive branch of government to investigate complains about state workers and volunteers. It’s a promise Lynch said he intends to keep.

"I think it’s important for us to restore people’s confidence in state government," Lynch said this week. "I do think there has been a certain amount of cynicism on the part of the public." Lynch said he was also examining whether the commission’s reach would also cover the Executive Council.

The governor-elect’s proposal sounds similar to what the state of Maine already has in place. That state’s Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices is among other things responsible for the collection and monitoring of contribution disclosure forms.

The commission is an independent state agency that administers Maine’s campaign finance laws, the Maine Clean Election Act, and the lobbyist disclosure law. It also issues advisory opinions and conducts investigations regarding legislative ethics.

The Maine commission consists of five members jointly appointed by the governor and legislative leaders for three-year terms. The commission is bipartisan, and no more than two members may be enrolled in the same political party.

According to commission Executive Director Jonathan Wayne, Maine election laws prohibit the use of funds from political action committees for personal use. Lawmakers in Maine receive a salary about 200 times larger than their New Hampshire counterparts. Of course, the Maine Legislature is just a fraction of the size of New Hampshire.

There are 186 Maine legislators, 151 in the House and 35 in the Senate. With 400 House members and 24 state senators making $100 a year, New Hampshire is in a unique position. Every year, including this year, there are lawmakers who seek to reduce the size of the General Court, the third largest legislative body in the English-speaking world, smaller only than the U.S. Congress and British Parliament.

Any ideas of paring down the state’s citizen Legislature in favor of "professional politicians" are usually quickly dismissed. While the notion of a smaller legislative body will no doubt be dismissed again this year, lawmakers and political observers agree it is time to take a hard look at the money the state’s politicians receive.

Looking at New Hampshire’s statutes regarding political and other contributions can be a bit confusing.

Lawmakers say aligning those laws, and conforming the ethics guidelines to mirror the statutes, is the first order of business. First, there are contributions to campaign political action committees.

These funds are used by lawmakers to run their campaigns. Then, there are the "gifts" raised by the "friends of" committees, used to offset personal costs, which come from serving in public office with virtually no salary. This is what has grabbed the public’s attention regarding Chandler and Griffin.

While RSA 640:5 prohibits elected officials from taking anything of value, a law known as "15-B" requires all elected officials to report anything over $50 they receive for non-political purposes. Then there are the legislative ethics guidelines which prohibit lawmakers from accepting more than $250 from a contributor who may have business pending before the Legislature.

Councilor Ray Burton, R-Bath, has a friends committee, but like most other politicians in the state it is a political action committee. That means the proceeds raised by the committee go to political expenses, not personal use. However, Burton does use the money for car expenses and other items the public may think are personal expenses.

Burton was able to raise about $94,000 in the last election cycle. What Burton does is well within the law, however. According to state law, surplus funds from political action committees cannot be used for personal expenses. However, the statute states the money can be used for any "politically related activity."

The term "politically related activity" is not defined in the statutes. "It’s a little surprising that even some of the people in the Statehouse were unaware of what the law says," said Martin Honigberg, a Concord attorney and former member of the Attorney General’s Office.

While working in the Attorney General’s Office, it was Honigberg’s job to review the campaign finance disclosure forms. "I truly think it is time for the Legislature to take a look at itself and decide what should be allowed and what should not. You can certainly make the case lawmakers shouldn’t accept anything," said Honigberg. "You can also make the argument they can receive some things. Either way, this discussion needs to take place."

Tom Rath, another Concord lawyer and a former attorney general, agreed something needs to be done.

"There definitely needs to be a clarification. People need to know how to report and what to report and they should not have to keep asking the secretary of state what they should be doing," Rath said. "That’s where there’s been uncertainty and they need to know what is acceptable and unacceptable and say it in a way which is unmistakable ... That’s one thing we’ve done very badly."

Rath said he advocates the creation of a fund for legislative leadership to dip into to defray the cost of serving in the Legislature. Members of leadership in the House and Senate are usually in the Statehouse seven days a week during the session, and make trips to the capitol year-round, even when the Legislature is not in session.

"My feeling is there needs to be some sort of reimbursement beyond the $100 these lawmakers receive. It’s disingenuous to say if someone can’t afford to serve then they shouldn’t run," Rath said. "I’m all for setting aside a certain amount of money and that way we eliminate the friends committees. If they don’t do something like this, they will leave themselves open to insinuation. If it costs the state a couple of thousand dollars to do this, it’s worth it in my mind."

Newly elected House Speaker Doug Scamman, R-Stratham, agreed changes are on the horizon, but cautioned the state’s system will not see a drastic transformation.

"I think the issue will get examined thoroughly, and there will be a strong effort to make sure the laws and the ethics guidelines are all in sync. I think they will make it clear you have to file and we will all have a better knowledge of what has to be filed," Scamman said.

The speaker said he would not support any efforts to increase lawmakers’ salaries or create a special fund for leadership. "If you’re going to raise salaries for a few, that would also be inappropriate. It doesn’t make any sense to start down that road," Scamman said.

In Massachusetts, House members receive about $55,000 a year, more if they hold a leadership position or committee chairmanship.

Senate Majority Leader Robert Clegg, R-Hudson, agreed clarifying the laws is the top, and maybe only priority. A raise in the $100-a-year salary is out of the question, he said.

"This is mainly about reporting. Once we figure out what it is we’re supposed to report we’ll all be better off," Clegg said. "There’s no way you can wipe out financial gifts and political contribution, but we can improve the reporting. And the idea we can just increase the salaries is laughable. If people really want to do that we have to say ‘OK, what program do you want to cut to come up with the millions of dollars for the salaries?"

So far, there are about a half-dozen bills being drafted dealing with contributions. The details on those pieces of legislation are not clear yet. One bill calls for the creation of a study commission to examine the issue and make suggestions on how to change the system. A bill being proposed by Rep. Anthony DiFruscia, R-Windham, would create a bi-partisan ethics committee within the House to monitor contributions, similar to the system the Congress employs.

DiFruscia challenged Chandler for the speaker’s chair. "There needs to be a committee to offer advice, and it would also have enforcement responsibilities," said DiFruscia, who is currently drafting the language of the bill. DiFruscia is also sponsoring a bill to prohibit the receipt of gifts.

"No, I do not think gifts should be allowed. I think the inference is pretty clear," he said. Also, DiFruscia wants to stop the use of money from political action committees for personal use.

"Obviously, the one that stands out is a PAC should not contribute to the personal use of an elected official. That has a very specific sound to it," DiFruscia said. "A PAC is established for political action. If anyone in government takes money from PAC, I can’t see how that could be interpreted in any other way as a political contribution."

New Hampshire was one of the first states to mandate the disclosure of political contributions. In 1909, state Sen. Robert Bass, grandfather of U.S. Congressman Charlie Bass, pushed through the first law requiring lobbyists to register with the state and file disclosure forms.

In 1911, the state’s first disclosure law for the Legislature was put on the books. Candidates had to publish their receipts and expenditures in the newspapers. Failure to do so was met with a fine of at least $100 and a minimum of 30 days in jail. Those penalties were relaxed, but the filing requirement went more or less unchanged for the next 70 years or so, according to Secretary of State Bill Gardner.

Spending limits were first introduced in 1915 and remained on the books until the 1970s, when a federal court ruling stated limits were unconstitutional because "money equals speech" and limiting spending equated to limiting free speech. By about 1990, New Hampshire and other states implemented voluntary spending limits, which is still in place today.

Candidates can choose to stay within the limits and by doing so, agree to restrictions on how much they can receive from each contributor. Those electing not to stay within the limits have tighter restrictions on contribution amounts.

Maine introduced a public finance system for elections in 1996 as part of the state’s "clean elections" initiative. While the system is voluntary, it gives candidates a chance to run against candidates who have personal wealth to draw from, without having to raise substantial funds from contributors. According to the commission’s executive director, 78 percent of candidates running for state and county offices participate in the public finance system.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire say there aren’t funds to support a public finance system. In the early ‘90s New Hampshire implemented reporting requirements for gifts. "That law says gifts can be accepted solely because of the position the elected officials hold," Gardner said. Since the early 1990s, the state’s reporting laws have gone without major changes.

N.H. Statehouse Writer Colin Manning can be reached at 266-3633 or statehouse@fosters.com

Spring is right around the corner and so is the American Cancer Society Daffodil Days. The daffodil is the first flower of spring and the American Cancer Society flower of hope - hope for a cancer-free world.

Now is the time to become involved with this worthwhile fund-raising event that supports the American Cancer Society to fund cancer research, education initiatives, advocacy activities, and service programs for cancer patients.

"In the past year, the American Cancer Society has made strong efforts to connect cancer patients to the latest in treatment and services, by promoting aggressive ways of fighting the disease through research and legislative efforts all to help us eliminate cancer as a major health problem within our lifetime," said Jari Johnston-Allen, CEO of the American Cancer Society, Midwest Division. "We've made some great accomplishments in 2004, but we're not done yet."

In Wisconsin in 2004, American Cancer Society volunteers worked to convince elected officials to do the following:

Create a cancer drug repository that will allow cancer patients and their families to donate unused, unopened prescription drugs to uninsured and low-income individuals.

Defeat an attempt to allow small businesses to pool together in order to offer self-insured health plans that would be exempt from all state-mandated benefits.
Work with a coalition to increase funding for the state Medicaid program by $175 million.

Pass legislation to prohibit smoking in all University of Wisconsin dormitories.

Increase funding for breast cancer research at the University of Wisconsin and the Medical College of Wisconsin through the creation of a new state income tax check-off.

Support the passage of Wisconsin's strongest local smoke-free ordinance in Madison, which includes all bars and restaurants.

By the year 2015, the American Cancer Society has set goals to reduce cancer deaths by 50 percent, reduce cancer cases by 25 percent, and improve the quality of life for all cancer patients and survivors. Support of the American Cancer Society Daffodil Days event is just one of the many ways to help the American Cancer Society reach their goals.

The 2005 Daffodil Days event is March 7-11, and there are many ways to become involved. Local residents are encouraged to volunteer their time to help bring daffodils to their communities or place an order to receive daffodils.

Area businesses, churches, nursing homes, hospitals, schools and individuals are encouraged to support Daffodil Days. Daffodil bunches, approximately 10 stems, are available with a $7 donation. With a $15 donation, a Gift of Hope bouquet will be delivered anonymously to a local cancer patient receiving treatment. Half and full cases of daffodils are available and make great gifts to recognize employees, customers, and business associates. Local volunteer coordinators will be out in full force until Feb. 23, taking daffodil orders, which will be available the week of March 7.

To order daffodils or to volunteer, please call 1-800-ACS-2345 or visit www.cancer.org. Funds raised through Daffodil Days supports the American Cancer Society in the goals of eliminating cancer as a major health problem, diminishing suffering from cancer, and improving the quality of life for cancer patients and survivors.

DALLAS -- Dallas hotels had much to celebrate New Year's weekend as the Cotton Bowl provided a real boom for business, but there is deep concern about the future.

Some in the industry are still fuming at the city's smoking ban, which they say is burning a hole in their bottom line.

Dallas hotels craving convention business said the city's smoking ban is choking future profits.

Word is out that the ban isn't just in public spaces; it bans smoking in hotel meeting rooms rented by conventioneers.

Some say a dollar figure can't be put on it. Dallas ranks in the top 10 nationally in convention business with the ban instead of worrying about Houston and San Antonio.

The Hyatt's Steve Dissotzky believes smokers will drive the extra miles if it means they can light up.

In a letter to the mayor, the Dallas Convention and Visitors Bureau said it hasn't lost any business because of the ban, but the bureau isn't in the hotel business.

With the recent sale of major hotels there is concern that where there's no smoke, there's no profit.

The hotel association said they will continue lobbying city leaders to get them to relax the ban for hotel meeting rooms.

By a 2-to-1 ratio, New Mexico voters would support a statewide law to prohibit smoking in most public places, including workplaces, restaurants and public buildings, according to a recent survey.

The poll was conducted by Research and Polling Inc. on commission by New Mexicans Concerned About Tobacco, a coalition of anti-smoking groups.

"Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, whether you're liberal or conservative, registered voters favor such a workplace law," Research and Polling President Brian Sanderoff said.

The coalition announced Tuesday that it will support a proposal for a state law modeled on Albuquerque's clean indoor air ordinance, which prohibits smoking in workplaces and restaurants.

"We must do something so people all across New Mexico can go into restaurants without having to worry about having an asthma attack," Park said.

Carol Wight, chief executive officer of the New Mexico Restaurant Association, said her group would wait to see the legislation and hear from its members before taking a position.

"We're here to support businesses, and if businesses feel they're not being supported, we'll be out there fighting," Wight said.

The association opposed the Albuquerque ban, saying it would drive business to restaurants in surrounding communities.

The survey released Tuesday also found that 83 percent of voters say exposure to secondhand smoke is a serious or moderate health hazard, while 9 percent called it a minor hazard and 4 percent "not a hazard."

And 88 percent agreed that "all New Mexico workers should be protected from exposure to secondhand smoke in the workplace."

"This law would give people, particularly people with respiratory problems, the freedom to go out again, the freedom to go out and a have a meal and shop with family and friends," said Dona Upson, a pulmonary specialist with the University of New Mexico Hospital.