The organization New York City Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment sued in April to block the actions.
“This is putting the prohibitionists on notice that despite their ugly war being waged on adults who choose to smoke, they are not entitled to a free-for-all in governing when it comes to this segment of society,” Audrey Silk, founder of the group, said today in a statement.
New York City banned smoking in almost all workplaces and indoor recreational venues in March 2003, and the state Legislature followed with a similar ban four months later.
Debbie said she was astonished when questioned about the Alice in Wonderland inspired display. She said: "He told me he'd come in to investigate because there had been a complaint that the shisha pipe was contravening UK smoking in the workplace regulations.
"I said, 'but it's a wooden caterpillar', and he said 'yes, but it's smoking', and I said 'no, it's not'.
"I really thought someone was winding me up, I wasn't taking it seriously.
"It's not even a real shisha pipe, it's an ornament, it doesn't work.
"But he didn't have a problem with the shisha pipe, it was the caterpillar smoking on business premises.
"I said to him, even if it was a real caterpillar the chances of it lighting the pipe were pretty thin, but the fact that it's a wooden caterpillar renders it impossible."
Debbie said she refused to let the officer investigate further, and told him to leave the shop in Bolton Street, Blackburn.
She said: "I wouldn't let him investigate, I said to him 'if you haven't got better things to do, I certainly have, you need to leave, I don't believe it needs further investigating'.
"He said there was a real problem in Blackburn with shisha. I don't know if that's with caterpillars smoking it.
Council members Dennis Alemian, Harold Reeves, Richard Levola, Brian Gosper and Jonathan Cesolini voted against the proposal, with Joyce Ricci, John Hallbergh Jr. and John Sarantopoulos supporting the measure. Council member Ed Grandelski was absent. Many of the council members who opposed the proposal called the changes too far-reaching.
Despite the month long ban on smoking at Ridgefield High School, many students continued to puff away, the Oct. 6, 1988 Press reported.
A number of students argued that the policy was unfair and that the school was being hypocritical for allowing its employees to light up. “People are going to smoke, no matter what the rule is,” said sophomore Roger Metz who said he had been a smoker for three years.
“I’m 18 years old. I have a legal right to buy the things,” said senior Jon Valen. “It’s my choice if I want to smoke ’em or not.”
An unpublished report produced by the U.K. government, which was leaked to The Guardian in 1980, estimated that a public anti-smoking campaign would cause a substantial fall in tax revenues and a substantial rise in pension outlays (Phillips, 1980; Temple, 2010). A report produced by Arthur D. Little for the Czech government in 2001, which was commissioned by Philip Morris, estimated that smoking has a moderate positive impact on public finances in the Czech Republic (Philip Morris, 2000; Tiihonen et al., 2012). Given that the report was commissioned by a tobacco company, its findings should obviously be interpreted with a fair amount of scepticism. Yang et al. (2011) estimate that smoking confers net costs on the Chinese economy, yet they do not attempt to quantify any of the potential benefits of smoking. Finally, Tiihonen et al. estimate that, in Finland, the average smoker’s fiscal contribution is around €133,000 greater than the average non-smoker’s.
In conclusion, the weight of the evidence suggests that smoking is a positive fiscal externality. Smokers pay less in income taxes than non-smokers, yet pay considerably more in consumption taxes. Their lifetime healthcare costs are probably slightly lower than those of non-smokers. And they take far less from the pension system than non-smokers, relative to what they pay in
If the Health Evangelism is to be stopped, then it is obvious that one cannot rely upon the Government. The Gov is powerless. What might work is an amalgamation of the interests of Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol and Big Food. In fact, of course, that amalgamation might already be in place. If it is not, then it ought to be. In fact, I remember seeing a Zealot claiming that Big Tobacco and Big Alcohol were already colluding. Needless to say, the Zealot did not explain why the entities Big T and Big A should NOT collaborate. In fact, they ought to have been collaborating for the last four decades. If Big A had any sense, it would be producing ‘studies’ showing the lack of harm for SHS and Fast Food. Big Alcohol is acting like an infant, shaking and shuddering and waiting for Big Nanny to give it a good hiding. If Big Alcohol had any sense, it would commission ‘meta studies’ with the objective of showing that SHS is harmless. In other words, it would be defending itself by proxy.
It is all-right to say that Big A and Big F did not see what was on the horizon. But there is no excuse now. Both, surely, must be aware. Both must surely have seen the drip, drip tactics of the Zealots.
It is beyond my comprehension that a combination of Big T, Big A and Big F have not produced their own free newspaper, and produced their own blog-site. Both should, a) demolish the quack surveys and studies, b) replace the idea of QUADRUPLE minuscule danger with negligible REAL danger, and c) find out how much money is changing hands in bribes in the UN and the WHO and the EU. IT MUST BE SO, since there are no ‘commercial imperative’ checks.
Now the state is paying up around $170 million to these companies.
It has to do with the Master Settlement Agreement. In 1998, those big tobacco companies entered into this agreement with states which called for the companies to reimburse the state for medical treatment for smokers.
In return, the states couldn’t sue them.
Pennsylvania would get around $300 million a year from the agreement with funds going to research and anti-smoking programs.
But the tobacco companies are saying the state didn’t properly collect payments on the state's 2003 sales of tobacco products.
The cut means smoking cessation programs, like the one at Wellspan’s Gettysburg Hospital, will cut more than 50 percent of their anti-smoking efforts.
“It was a tremendous shock. We were told all along we would have ongoing funding through June 30, 2014,” said Kevin Alvarnaz, director of community health.
Six states are being hit with a similar ruling. The state’s Attorney General’s Office is fighting it.