South Bend smoking ordinance inches forward

South Bend's Common Council gave first reading to the controversial ordinance that would ban smoking in bars and restaurants during its meeting Monday evening. "We certainly recognize change is difficult and we're presenting a change, but ultimately I hope that everyone in the community and our colleagues on the council will look at the evidence that has been presented," said Valerie Schey (D) - District 3. Schey, along with Fred Ferlic, Oliver Davis and Gavin Ferlic co-sponsored the bill. In order to pass it, they would only need one vote, but may struggle to get it.

 "If a business person has built up their business and their establishment, in my view it’s up to them whether they would like to have them continue or not," said Derek Dieter (D) - At-Large. The bill may also drive smokers to nearby cities or into the county where smoking would still be allowed. "I think it should be county wide. It's not fair to a city resident or city business that if this were to pass and I have no idea if it would, for someone to be able to go into the county and the same thing, so my own personal opinion I would not be for it," said Dieter. During the Health and Public Safety Committee earlier Monday afternoon, Code Enforcement expressed some concerns about enforcing the ordinance, although it had been formally reviewed yet.

Proponents said it would not take many more resources to enforce this ordinance, if it passes. "Certainly we will be working with the code department and their officers to really go through the training required. It's really more of a self-policing type of ordinance where the bar owners will be asked to ask guests that are smoking to stop smoking," said Schey. In anticipation of many people speaking on both sides, the council scheduled the public hearing for June 18 at 5 p.m. A vote could come during the regular meeting on June 25.

Calif. tobacco tax proposal faces challenge

In California Tuesday night, voters are deciding whether to impose a new tax on tobacco products. For cigarette smokers, it would mean an extra dollar a pack. But it could cost the tobacco companies a lot more than that. The ad war over Proposition 29 in California has been raging for weeks. One ad said: "A 'yes' vote on Prop 29 will save lives, provide cancer research money, and keep our kids from smoking." But another ad said: "It raises $735 million in tobacco taxes. But not one penny goes to new funding for cancer treatment." Health advocates thought the $1 per pack tax on cigarettes would be an easy sell.

California has been at the forefront of banning smoking in public places. Mark DiCamillo conducts the California Field Poll. "A cigarette tax on its face is usually a popular kind of tax with voters," he said, "and the reason for that is that most voters don't smoke." Just 12 percent of Californians smoke. Donations to pay for ads supporting Prop 29 rolled in from Lance Armstrong's foundation and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg. A March poll found 67 percent favored the proposal. Then big tobacco fought back in a big way. "Prop 29 is flawed. It raises nearly a billion in taxes, but doesn't require it to be spent in California creating jobs," said an anti-Prop 29 ad. Tobacco giants Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds launched a counterattack with a $46-million war chest.

Their campaign has cut support for the tax to just 53 percent Daniel Newman runs a research firm that has tracked the money spent by both sides. "The tobacco groups are spending triple what the 'yes' side -- the cancer groups -- are spending," he said. "The tobacco companies have the resources to spend whatever they feel they need to spend to defeat this measure." If passed, the tax would raise an estimated $735 million to fund cancer research and education. Critics say it will do nothing to solve California's biggest problem: its massive budget deficit. Joel Fox is president of a small business association opposed to the tax.

"We have a $16-billion deficit and they're trying to wall off some more money," he said. "Not a penny goes to education, not a penny goes to the social welfare programs in the state." Health researchers tell us that if the tax does pass, they expect the number of smokers here in California to drop from 12 percent to about 8 percent. That alone could cost the tobacco companies about $1 billion, so that is a big part of why they are fighting so hard to defeat this.

California tobacco tax measure risks going up in smoke

Health-conscious Californians may mostly oppose smoking for its costs to public health and the economy but an aggressive tobacco industry campaign and general anti-tax sentiment may block a measure to raise taxes on smokers. Airwaves in the most populous U.S. state are filling up with advertising for and against Proposition 29, a June 5 ballot measure that would add a $1 tax to a pack of cigarettes, taking the tax to $1.87, mainly to fund medical research on tobacco usage and programs to prevent and control it. More than $40 million, mostly from the tobacco industry, has been raised to defeat the measure, dwarfing its proponents' war chest. But proponents are showing an ability to punch above their weight, most recently with a television commercial whose characters satirically explain why they support "Big Tobacco."

 One character says "I support Big Tobacco because they killed my wife and that's one less mouth to feed." More tough TV spots may follow as survey results released this week showed just over half of likely voters supporting the measure - down from just over two-thirds in March. "Today, 53 percent say they will vote yes, 42 percent say they will vote no, and 5 percent are undecided on the measure," the Public Policy Institute of California's survey report said. The ballot measure in California, the world's ninth largest economy, is of national importance because other U.S. states often follow its lead in confronting problems in public health, the environment and other areas of public policy.

 The drop in support puts Prop 29 below a critical level for revenue measures with election day fast approaching, said Larry Gerston, a political scientist at San Jose State University. "You've got to have 60 percent going in because there are always people who for whatever reason back off," he said, noting the drop also shows how effective advertising that taps into distrust of the state government has been against the measure. That distrust is working against the general idea of raising tobacco taxes, which 63 percent of likely voters favor, said Mark Baldassare, the institute's president. END RUN AROUND LEGISLATURE "Sixty-two percent of likely voters say the state government wastes a lot of money," Baldassare said. "Any time you're asking voters to raise state taxes for any purpose and there is questioning of the functioning of state government it's going to raise doubts."

 Californians have been questioning the finances of their state for a decade due to its persistent budget shortfalls. Governor Jerry Brown earlier this month revised the state's projected deficit to $15.7 billion from a $9.2 billion gap forecast in January. To close the shortfall, he proposed cuts to state employees' pay and health, social and welfare programs. He also urged support for a tax measure in November to lift the state's sales tax and raise income taxes on wealthy taxpayers. Supporters of Prop 29 did not expect smooth sailing to sway voters, but a tobacco tax increase has better odds at the ballot box than in the state legislature, said Jim Knox, a legislative advocate for the American Cancer Society. By his count more than 30 efforts over the last three decades to have lawmakers raise tobacco taxes have failed.

 There is no incentive for the legislature as a body to embrace a consequential tobacco tax increase, said Stanton Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Democrats won't turn down support from the tobacco industry that helps cement their majority in the legislature while its Republican minority opposes taxes in general and needs any help it can get to retain seats. "The legislature is just simply dominated by tobacco interests," said Glantz, whose work based on documents from a tobacco industry whistleblower helped produce the 1998 Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement. That settlement between 46 states and tobacco companies was the biggest civil litigation settlement in U.S. history.

Tobacco tax vote could echo outside California

Order cigarettes from this site online
Big Tobacco’s branding a proposed California cigarette tax as a government boondoggle sent a message that could echo in other states. Through a barrage of campaign ads, the industry was able to cut support for a $1-a-pack cigarette tax backed by cycling legend Lance Armstrong from a two-thirds majority in March to a dead heat on Election Day. While the outcome remained unclear Wednesday afternoon, experts said the vote could scare off tobacco foes in other states. The $47 million ad campaign _ which scarcely motioned the word “tobacco” _ also showed that cigarette makers are shifting from arguing about their product to finding other ways to attack tax initiatives. Anti-smoking advocates say they will keep fighting for increased taxes, which have been shown to cut smoking rates.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below. A California initiative to raise the tax on tobacco products was losing early Wednesday but the vote was still too close to call because hundreds of thousands of ballots potentially remained uncounted. The day after Election Day, Proposition 29 was losing by just over 1 percent, or about 64,000 votes out of more than 3.8 million counted. However, even with all precincts reporting, there typically are many late-arriving ballots from early and absentee voting not counted until after election day. These ballots typically comprise up to 20 percent of all votes, meaning potentially hundreds of thousands of votes were still to be counted statewide. It could be days or longer before a winner is declared.

Cycling legend Lance Armstrong backed the measure to impose an additional $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research. A $50 million opposition ad campaign was led by Big Tobacco. In March, a statewide poll suggested the Proposition 29 would pass with two-thirds approval. The situation reminded some of a 2006 California cigarette tax measure that was leading by wide margins until tobacco companies spent $66 million to defeat it. The attempt to hike taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products grew into a national fight last month with tobacco companies pouring in millions to quash the effort and celebrities including the New York City Mayor urging voters to support it. As returns came in, both camps said they expected a close race but remained confident they would emerge the winner.

Calif. voters split on tax targeted by Big Tobacco

A California initiative to raise the tax on tobacco products was losing early Wednesday but the vote was still too close to call because hundreds of thousands of ballots potentially remained uncounted. The day after Election Day, Proposition 29 was losing by just over 1% or about 64,000 votes out of more than 3.8 million counted. However, even with all precincts reporting, there typically are many late-arriving ballots from early and absentee voting not counted until after election day. These ballots typically comprise up to 20% of all votes, meaning potentially hundreds of thousands of votes were still to be counted statewide.

It could be days or longer before a winner is declared. Cycling legend Lance Armstrong backed the measure to impose an additional $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes to fund cancer research. A $50 million opposition ad campaign was led by Big Tobacco. In March, a statewide poll suggested the Proposition 29 would pass with two-thirds approval. The situation reminded some of a 2006 California cigarette tax measure that was leading by wide margins until tobacco companies spent $66 million to defeat it. The attempt to hike taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products grew into a national fight last month with tobacco companies pouring in millions to quash the effort and celebrities including the New York City Mayor urging voters to support it. As returns came in, both camps said they expected a close race but remained confident they would emerge the winner.

"We expected that as voters took a look at the measure, they would recognize the serious flaws, and as well intentioned as the measure is, they would realize it's not right for California," Beth Miller, spokeswoman for the No on 29 campaign said Wednesday. Tobacco taxes have been proven to reduce smoking. But opponents said the initiative would create an unaccountable bureaucracy in charge of doling out the tax revenue, which is expected to start at $735 million a year. An extra tax in the nation's most populous state also could mean major losses for tobacco companies, and Proposition 29 supporters said industry heavyweights were inventing arguments to obscure their true motive — safeguarding profits. "I think the public health message has gotten through the smoke screen of the tobacco companies' nearly $50 million misinformation campaign," Jim Knox of the American Cancer Society said Tuesday.

Armstrong and a coalition of anti-smoking groups raised about $18 million to bolster the measure. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $500,000 to the campaign to help offset the industry donations. Majorities in the Democratic-leaning counties along the Northern California coast favored the tax, while majorities in most other regions others opposed it. Voters on both sides expressed strong convictions as they cast their ballots. "I think that we should aggressively discourage smoking — make it less convenient, make it more expensive," said Susan Hyman of Long Beach. In nearby Glendale, Craig Jerpseth, a 43 year-old nurse, was equally certain about voting the measure down. "I hope we don't get any more taxes.

That's pretty much it," he said. A slew of newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, opposed the measure while proclaiming their reluctance to side with tobacco companies. They argued that the revenue should go to the state, which Gov. Jerry Brown announced last month now faces a deficit of $16 billion. With a smoking rate of 12.1%, California has not raised these taxes since 2000. If the measure passes, California would still have only the 16th highest tax rate in the nation.

California voters split on $1 per pack tobacco tax

A California ballot initiative that pitted big-spending tobacco companies against cycling legend Lance Armstrong and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was too close to call Tuesday night. In a testament to the power of a month-long onslaught of radio and television campaigns financed by tobacco companies, Californians were split on whether slap an additional $1-per-pack tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to fund cancer research. The measure had almost 51 percent of the vote with more than 2 million ballots cast.

 The Public Policy Institute of California found that support for the initiative dropped from 67 percent in March to 53 percent by late May. The attempt to increase cigarettes taxes in the nation's most populous state has attracted nationwide attention, with tobacco companies pouring in millions to quash the effort and celebrities urging voters to support it. Tobacco taxes have been proven to reduce smoking. But opponents said the initiative would create an unaccountable bureaucracy and hurt the economy by sending tax money raised in California to other states. An extra tax in the state also would mean major losses for tobacco companies. Both camps said Tuesday night that they had expected a close race and remained confident. "It's going to be a long night, and that's what we expected," said Beth Miller, spokeswoman for the no on 29 campaign.

"It's been a question of the voters taking a look and deciding that they really didn't want to support this measure, but it's also coupled with the fact that people generally do support cancer research." Supporters said the tax revenue would stay in California and create jobs. They said tobacco companies are inventing arguments to obscure their true motive -- safeguarding profits. Patrick Reynolds, grandson of the founder of tobacco company R.J. Reynolds and the executive director TobaccoFree.org, said Tuesday night that he was feeling confident and was happy to see the measure eking out a narrow lead. Armstrong and a coalition of anti-smoking groups raised about $18 million to bolster the measure. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave $500,000 to the campaign to help offset the industry donations.

 The tax would generate about $735 million a year in revenue, according to the independent legislative analyst's office. At polling places around the state Tuesday, voters on both side of the issue expressed strong convictions. At a sleepy poll site in Long Beach, attorney Susan Hyman cast her ballot for a new tobacco tax without hesitation. "I think that we should aggressively discourage smoking -- make it less convenient, make it more expensive," said Hyman, a Democrat. At a nearly abandoned polling site at a parochial school in the Los Angeles area, Craig Jerpseth, 43, said he's voting against anything or anyone who might mean more taxes.

"I hope we don't get any more taxes. That's pretty much it," said the Glendale nurse. A slew of newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, have opposed the measure while proclaiming their reluctance to side with tobacco companies. They argue that the revenue should go to the state, which Gov. Jerry Brown announced last month now faces a deficit of $16 billion. With a smoking rate of 12.1 percent, California has not raised these taxes since 2000. If the measure passes, California would still have only the 16th highest tax rate in the nation.

Synthetic Marijuana Suspect Pleads Guilty

It’s a first of its’ kind bust in Florida — Drug Enforcement Agents taking down a South Florida man suspected of distributing fake pot. Monday, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami said Joel Lester, 52, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to possess with the intent to distribute synthetic marijuana. Drug Enforcement Agents say they found bags and boxes of fake pot — with catchy names like Mr. Nice Guy Mango, Mr. Nice Guy Strawberry and Blueberry Afterlife — when they busted Lester. Federal prosecutors say Lester sold fake pot to convenience stores and gas stations which then sold it to the public.

 Mark Trouville, the Special Agent in Charge of DEA’s Miami Field Division, said the case against Lester signifies a new front in the fight against illegal drugs. This is a significant case for us,” Trouville said. “It’s the first federal prosecution of synthetic marijuana investigations. The DEA is going to aggressively pursue this.” Trouville said the makers and sellers of synthetic marijuana are crafty at keeping their products on store shelves.

Even though the DEA and state legislators have banned many ingredients in fake pot, authorities say the makers have slightly altered the recipe to keep it legal. Trouville said that’s what makes fake pot so dangerous. “These are cousins of THC which is the active ingredient in marijuana and the potency is absolutely uncontrolled,” Trouville explained. “Some of the chemists who are doing this don’t even understand themselves how powerful this stuff is.” And it has led to serious injuries and even death. Just ask Gail Beard of Sunrise.

Her son Sean nearly died when his kidneys failed after smoking fake pot. “It needs to be stopped,” Beard told CBS 4′s Carey Codd. “It really does. The quicker that we get these places shut down and find out who these people are the better off we’re going to be.” The bottom line — says the DEA — if you use fake pot you don’t know what you’re putting in your body. “What may be something that got you high on one day, the same package two weeks from then could kill you,” Trouville warned. Federal prosecutors say Joel Lester will be sentenced in August. He could face up to 20 years in prison and a fine of up to $1-million dollars.