Company Tells Workers Quit Smoking Or Quit Jobs

[Bronco_Beerslug]

More tobacco realted news.......

------------------------------------------
Jury Orders Brown & Williamson to Pay $22 Mln
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A jury in Independence, Missouri on Wednesday ordered Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to pay $22 million to the family of a 73-year-old woman who died of lung and heart disease after smoking Kools for 58 years.

Ken McClain, attorney for the woman's family, said the panel made the award after finding Brown & Williamson, a unit of Reynolds American Inc., liable for 25 percent of the illness that led to Barbara Smith's death in 2000.

"We demonstrated the company had lied for years and continued to lie in court," McClain said.

A Brown & Williamson spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The jury award is the fifth-largest in the United States for an individual smoker against a tobacco company, and includes $20 million in punitive damages, said Edward Sweda of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks tobacco litigation.

The larger punitive damages amounts were awarded by California and Oregon juries that were viewed as more liberal than their heartland counterparts, but the Missouri panel's action proved that "the justifiable outrage ... is really universal across the country," Sweda said.

Tobacco companies have aggressively fought cases by individual smokers and have paid settlements in three cases that did not involve punitive damages, Sweda said.

The companies are appealing 10 cases dating back to 1999, in which juries awarded punitive damages amounts as large as $28 billion.

Most of the punitive damages awards were slashed by trial or appeals courts, leaving the largest standing verdict at $79.5 million, Sweda said.

The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) reined in punitive damages in recent years by suggesting a 4-to-1 ratio between punitive and economic damages.

The ruling, often cited by tobacco companies, sent the cases back to state appeals courts for a final calculation of punitive damages.

Oral arguments in an Oregon smoker's case were set for May 10 before the state supreme court in what was expected to be the first punitive damages award to be resolved, Sweda said.

That case -- Williams-Branch -- involves $79.5-million in punitive damages against Philip Morris Cos., a unit of Altria Group.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...illiamson_dc_1



Whose rights should we fight for in smoking ban campaign?
J. MICHAEL GONZALEZ-CAMPOY

The debate over secondhand smoke and the Freedom to Breathe Act, which has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature, is indeed a debate about personal rights (Craig Westover's column Jan. 26). But exactly whose rights should we be fighting for?

In thousands of Minnesota bars and restaurants, employees and customers are exposed to more than 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke. At least 11 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer. What is the justification for not protecting workers and patrons from these dangers?

The debate over secondhand smoke brings to mind the famous 1994 news photo of the country's top tobacco company executives, standing with right hands raised, swearing to tell the truth in testimony to Congress. The photo was taken just before they testified that smoking did not cause cancer. A decade later, even the tobacco companies admit that cigarette smoking kills.

No doubt there will be a similar turning of the tide on the issue of secondhand smoke. The scientific evidence is overwhelming — secondhand smoke is one of the country's leading causes of preventable death. It has been linked to diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and asthma.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — to cite just one example — has gone so far as to warn people who have heart disease, or are at risk for heart disease, to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke because less than 30 minutes of exposure can trigger a significant heart event.

But how long must workers keep waiting for public policy to catch up with science? Minnesota workers have every right to an environment that will not seriously damage their health. So do customers in bars and restaurants. The Freedom to Breathe Act would protect that right.

Throughout history, the health of workers and the public has been a high priority. In 1970 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created to protect workers. In 1975 Minnesota passed the Clean Indoor Air Act to protect office workers from secondhand smoke.

Do bar and restaurant workers and customers deserve less protection than office workers? Do they have fewer rights to a safe environment?

Experience shows that smoke-free policies protect our health. Studies of Delaware's hospitality venues before and after a smoke-free law showed that the levels of airborne cancer-causing substances decreased by at least 90 percent. The result is healthier workers and customers, and that translates into lower health care bills and fewer employee absences because of smoke-related illness.

Experience shows that most consumers support smoke-free policies. In New York City, restaurant and bar tax receipts increased 12 percent following the enactment of a smoke-free indoor air law. After passage of the Indoor Air Act in California, bar and restaurant sales increased from $8.64 billion to $11.30 billion from 1997 to 2002.

And right here at home, 93 percent of Minnesotans who participated in the 2003 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey said they would eat out more often or the same amount if there were a total restaurant smoking ban.

In the coming months, we owe it to ourselves to fully consider the health impact of the Freedom to Breathe Act. Some will argue that the generally low-wage workers in the hospitality industry really have "freedom of choice" to change jobs in order to protect their health. Others will debate that.

But the science of secondhand smoke is beyond debate. Secondhand smoke harms everyone who breathes it. The Freedom to Breathe Act would grant Minnesota bar and restaurant workers and patrons the same right to a healthy environment that we already guarantee to white-collar office workers. Only clear indoor air will protect a person's lungs and heart.

Gonzalez-Campoy of Sunfish Lake is president of the Minnesota Medical Association.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pionee...n/10799989.htm

[Garcia Bronco]

Here's the deal....though it may be illegal to removed somebody for all the reasons mentioned here. As an employer...I can find something wrong to can you. There's some kind of policy that you aren't following.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

More tobacco realted news.......

------------------------------------------
Jury Orders Brown & Williamson to Pay $22 Mln
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A jury in Independence, Missouri on Wednesday ordered Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. to pay $22 million to the family of a 73-year-old woman who died of lung and heart disease after smoking Kools for 58 years.

Ken McClain, attorney for the woman's family, said the panel made the award after finding Brown & Williamson, a unit of Reynolds American Inc., liable for 25 percent of the illness that led to Barbara Smith's death in 2000.

"We demonstrated the company had lied for years and continued to lie in court," McClain said.

A Brown & Williamson spokesman could not be reached for comment.

The jury award is the fifth-largest in the United States for an individual smoker against a tobacco company, and includes $20 million in punitive damages, said Edward Sweda of the Tobacco Products Liability Project, which tracks tobacco litigation.

The larger punitive damages amounts were awarded by California and Oregon juries that were viewed as more liberal than their heartland counterparts, but the Missouri panel's action proved that "the justifiable outrage ... is really universal across the country," Sweda said.

Tobacco companies have aggressively fought cases by individual smokers and have paid settlements in three cases that did not involve punitive damages, Sweda said.

The companies are appealing 10 cases dating back to 1999, in which juries awarded punitive damages amounts as large as $28 billion.

Most of the punitive damages awards were slashed by trial or appeals courts, leaving the largest standing verdict at $79.5 million, Sweda said.

The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) reined in punitive damages in recent years by suggesting a 4-to-1 ratio between punitive and economic damages.

The ruling, often cited by tobacco companies, sent the cases back to state appeals courts for a final calculation of punitive damages.

Oral arguments in an Oregon smoker's case were set for May 10 before the state supreme court in what was expected to be the first punitive damages award to be resolved, Sweda said.

That case -- Williams-Branch -- involves $79.5-million in punitive damages against Philip Morris Cos., a unit of Altria Group.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...illiamson_dc_1



Whose rights should we fight for in smoking ban campaign?
J. MICHAEL GONZALEZ-CAMPOY

The debate over secondhand smoke and the Freedom to Breathe Act, which has been introduced in the Minnesota Legislature, is indeed a debate about personal rights (Craig Westover's column Jan. 26). But exactly whose rights should we be fighting for?

In thousands of Minnesota bars and restaurants, employees and customers are exposed to more than 4,000 chemicals in secondhand smoke. At least 11 of these chemicals are known to cause cancer. What is the justification for not protecting workers and patrons from these dangers?

The debate over secondhand smoke brings to mind the famous 1994 news photo of the country's top tobacco company executives, standing with right hands raised, swearing to tell the truth in testimony to Congress. The photo was taken just before they testified that smoking did not cause cancer. A decade later, even the tobacco companies admit that cigarette smoking kills.

No doubt there will be a similar turning of the tide on the issue of secondhand smoke. The scientific evidence is overwhelming — secondhand smoke is one of the country's leading causes of preventable death. It has been linked to diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and asthma.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — to cite just one example — has gone so far as to warn people who have heart disease, or are at risk for heart disease, to avoid exposure to secondhand smoke because less than 30 minutes of exposure can trigger a significant heart event.

But how long must workers keep waiting for public policy to catch up with science? Minnesota workers have every right to an environment that will not seriously damage their health. So do customers in bars and restaurants. The Freedom to Breathe Act would protect that right.

Throughout history, the health of workers and the public has been a high priority. In 1970 the Occupational Safety and Health Administration was created to protect workers. In 1975 Minnesota passed the Clean Indoor Air Act to protect office workers from secondhand smoke.

Do bar and restaurant workers and customers deserve less protection than office workers? Do they have fewer rights to a safe environment?

Experience shows that smoke-free policies protect our health. Studies of Delaware's hospitality venues before and after a smoke-free law showed that the levels of airborne cancer-causing substances decreased by at least 90 percent. The result is healthier workers and customers, and that translates into lower health care bills and fewer employee absences because of smoke-related illness.

Experience shows that most consumers support smoke-free policies. In New York City, restaurant and bar tax receipts increased 12 percent following the enactment of a smoke-free indoor air law. After passage of the Indoor Air Act in California, bar and restaurant sales increased from $8.64 billion to $11.30 billion from 1997 to 2002.

And right here at home, 93 percent of Minnesotans who participated in the 2003 Minnesota Adult Tobacco Survey said they would eat out more often or the same amount if there were a total restaurant smoking ban.

In the coming months, we owe it to ourselves to fully consider the health impact of the Freedom to Breathe Act. Some will argue that the generally low-wage workers in the hospitality industry really have "freedom of choice" to change jobs in order to protect their health. Others will debate that.

But the science of secondhand smoke is beyond debate. Secondhand smoke harms everyone who breathes it. The Freedom to Breathe Act would grant Minnesota bar and restaurant workers and patrons the same right to a healthy environment that we already guarantee to white-collar office workers. Only clear indoor air will protect a person's lungs and heart.

Gonzalez-Campoy of Sunfish Lake is president of the Minnesota Medical Association.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/pionee...n/10799989.htm

I just can't see how these juries are awarding this money and courts are even hearing it. Wow...

[RaiderH8r]

Firing somebody for smoking is ludicrous. That's the sort of thing that makes an employee go postal...and crap on the boss's desk.

Second, telling private businesses they can't allow people to smoke in their establishment is crap. My bar, my rules. Mess with me....crap on the desk. Until the Gov. pays the bills they get no say in who gets to engage in legal activities in my bar. Smoking is still legal and they can do it in my establishment. Want a non-smoking environment? Find it somewhere else. Bust my chops about it and....you guessed.....I crap on your desk.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Firing somebody for smoking is ludicrous. That's the sort of thing that makes an employee go postal...and crap on the boss's desk.

Second, telling private businesses they can't allow people to smoke in their establishment is crap. My bar, my rules. Mess with me....crap on the desk. Until the Gov. pays the bills they get no say in who gets to engage in legal activities in my bar. Smoking is still legal and they can do it in my establishment. Want a non-smoking environment? Find it somewhere else. Bust my chops about it and....you guessed.....I crap on your desk.

You own a bar in DC?

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

You own a bar in DC?

No. I got a little fired up. I don't smoke either, I just don't like the idea that as a business owner you are forced to cater to the needs of able bodied citizens when they have plenty of choices in terms of non smoking bars to go to.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

No. I got a little fired up. I don't smoke either, I just don't like the idea that as a business owner you are forced to cater to the needs of able bodied citizens when they have plenty of choices in terms of non smoking bars to go to.

This is my point. I'm a smoker, but if the market dictates a non-smoking bar, then you could make a non-smoking bar. It would be a niche or speacliaty type thing at first.

I mean hell they open up those damn water & juice bars....

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by amesj523

This is my point. I'm a smoker, but if the market dictates a non-smoking bar, then you could make a non-smoking bar. It would be a niche or speacliaty type thing at first.

I mean hell they open up those damn water & juice bars....

And oxygen bars.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

And oxygen bars.

Nope, no BSing man. I saw them in seattle and there is ONE here in my area.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

No. I got a little fired up. I don't smoke either, I just don't like the idea that as a business owner you are forced to cater to the needs of able bodied citizens when they have plenty of choices in terms of non smoking bars to go to.

Probably won't matter in a few more years. I can see insurers charging businesses that allow smoking huge premiums because of employee safety related to second hand smoke. That will probably dictate tobacco policy as much as anything else.

[Hogan11]

The NY smoking ban went into effect in 2003...it's largely ignored in my area now.

It's either pay the fines or close your doors.....some have closed down, most just payoff the State or lie about the help being voluntary, which...for some reason, makes a difference in compliance. Regardless, the smoking hasn't stopped here much...matter of fact, it's like the law doesn't even exist.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by amesj523

Nope, no BSing man. I saw them in seattle and there is ONE here in my area.

I know, I've seen them. But to each their own and such. First thing I thought of was Spaceballs.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Probably won't matter in a few more years. I can see insurers charging businesses that allow smoking huge premiums because of employee safety related to second hand smoke. That will probably dictate tobacco policy as much as anything else.

And that's the bottom line. I agree with this one. Next we'll all be required to eat only tofu and drink soy milk. Then the revolution starts.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by Hogan11

The NY smoking ban went into effect in 2003...it's largely ignored in my area now.

It's either pay the fines or close your doors.....some have closed down, most just payoff the State or lie about the help being voluntary, which...for some reason, makes a difference in compliance. Regardless, the smoking hasn't stopped here much...matter of fact, it's like the law doesn't even exist.

They could have 'tip' jars to pay the fines too

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The communists jumping in now..............

---------------------------------
Cuba, Land of Long Cigars, Bans Smoking in Public
By Anthony Boadle

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba, which evokes images of cigar-chomping revolutionaries, banned smoking in public places on Monday, an uphill struggle in a country synonymous with fine tobacco where more than half of adults smoke.

Cubans are no longer allowed to smoke in air-conditioned areas, offices, schools and sports centers in an island-wide health drive by President Fidel Castro (news - web sites)'s government.

Castro, once a famous aficionado of Cohiba cigars, gave up smoking two decades ago to safeguard his health.

But many Cubans continue to be heavy smokers and it is common to find people smoking in hospitals, elevators and even crowded buses, despite previous attempts to curb the habit.




Mercedes Martinez, left, 72, and Josefa Gamet, 62, make money posing for photos for foreign tourists in Old Havana, Cuba, Monday. (AP/Jose Goitia)


Cigarette vending machines have been banned outright as part of the drive. State-run bars and restaurants must set up separate smoking areas, although few have done so yet.

Private restaurants known as "paladars," fed up with fines by roving inspectors, were quick to clamp down on patrons.

At Havana's landmark Nacional Hotel, ashtrays have been removed from the lobby and guests are being told to visit the veranda if they want to enjoy a cigar with their mojito cocktail.

Smoking at the city's international airport is a thing of the past, though the national carrier Cubana will continue to let passengers smoke on some of its flights, the airline said.

At the How Yueng restaurant in central Havana, where the only Chinese dish is fried rice, no-smoking signs have been up for five years, but that did not deter customers from smoking.

"We turned a blind eye. Now we will be stricter," said waitress Yaily.

A freshly painted "Do Not Smoke" sign was stuck to the mirror of Gerardo's barber shop in Old Havana, and patrons were stepping out for a quick smoke.

"People smoked in here before, despite my complaints," said Gerardo, cropping a customer's hair. "Now they will have to go outside. Its clear now. It's the law," he said.

"It's all right," said Jorge, a pack-a-day truck driver, as he waited for his turn out on the sidewalk, puffing on a powerful Popular, Cuba's non-filtered dark tobacco cigarette. "There is air conditioning inside and that bothers people who do not smoke."

HABIT HARD TO KICK

The smoking decree published a month ago also banned the sale of cigarettes to minors and at any kiosk within 100 meters (109 yards) of schools.

At the Calixto Garcia Hospital in Havana, however, Cubans were puffing as usual in the cafe where cigarettes were still on sale.

More than half of Cuban adults smoke and lung cancer is a major cause of death in the island nation of 11 million.



Many Cubans are skeptical that the new regulations will stick in a country where smoking is so ingrained that the Communist state still hands out subsidized cigarettes with ration books to Cubans over the age of 50.

The Western world's five-century-long addiction to nicotine began in Cuba, where Christopher Columbus came across the tobacco leaf on his first voyage to the Americas in 1492. Crew members met natives smoking aromatic leaves in small lighted bundles.

While cigar manufacturers fled Cuba when it moved to communist rule under Castro, the island is still renowned for some of the finest smokes in the world.

Younger Cubans, who generally smoke less than previous generations, welcomed the smoking curbs.

"I am all for it. I don't smoke and I don't see why other people's smoke should harm my health," said Saidinys Barrera, an art history student.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...uba_smoking_dc

[NYBronco]

Considering the business he is trying to run, I agree with his stance.

http://www.weyco.com/web/

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

No, it isn't. Working for someone is a PRIVILEGE not a right. Besides, discrimination laws apply to barriers to getting a job. You can't discriminate on trivial bases as far as HIRING practices. Once they have the job, the boss can get rid of a person for any reason (in most cases).

Nope. Can't fire people for just any reason, especially obesity.

--------------------------------------------------------
Retraction Requested from Reuters News Agency
January 31, 2005

On Jan. 26, 2005, Reuters published an article entitled "Quit Smoking or Quit Your Job, U.S. Company Says" suggesting that Weyco, Inc., is considering a policy that might cause overweight workers to be disciplined or fired.

That implication is absolutely untrue. Weyco, Inc., through counsel, has formally requested a retraction, correction, or clarification from Reuters.

Weyco has no intention whatsoever of adopting any policy by which any employee could be subject to discipline or termination due to weight. Weyco provides positive lifestyle assistance, such as wellness counseling and subsidies for health club membership, for its employees through its wellness program, participation in which is completely voluntary.