Eric Herzik, a political science professor at the University of Nevada, Reno., also offered a simple explanation for this week’s surprising victory for strict regulations on smoking.

“People just don’t like it anymore,” he said

“When you’re this frontier state of 200,000 people, that live-and-let-live-attitude – no problem,” Herzik said.

But Nevada is no longer the Wild West.

“It’s a far more urban and thus regulated environment, and smoking is part of that,” Herzik said.

In a state where the flow of booze is perpetual, gambling fuels the economic engine and undertones of sex are flaunted, the outcome of Tuesday’s election caught many by surprise. Organizers didn’t target smokers in casinos, but they did impose government regulations in a state that prides itself on independence.

“Nevada has had a libertarian reputation, and has tried to uphold it, but that has been slipping away for quite a while,” said Michael Green, a history professor at the Community College of Southern Nevada.

“While we encourage people to come here and do things that are bad for them, we also have a growing baby boomer population,” Green said. “And that population is probably a bit more health conscious and might not want to be exposed to secondhand smoke.”

The state, now with a population of about 2.5 million, has the nation’s highest rate of smoking-related deaths and one of the lowest rates of smoke-free work places, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But Nevada also has a unique, almost-anything-goes economic relationship with tourists, and smoking has been regarded as what you do with your other hand while gambling.

Geno Hill, who owns five Rum Runner bars offering food and slots in Las Vegas and who is the president of the Nevada Tavern Owners Association, said he thought the independent leanings of Nevada’s rural counties would snuff Question 5.

“We were pretty comfortable the rural counties wouldn’t let California come in here any more than they are,” Hill said. “By golly, they did.”

Hill’s organization backed Question 4, a competing, less restrictive anti-smoking measure, which voters rejected, 52 percent to 48 percent.

Instead voters in Nevada’s most populated counties – Clark, Washoe, Douglas, and Carson City – as well as rural Churchill and Lincoln counties, approved Question 5. The remaining 11 rural counties turned it down.

Herzik was among many who projected Nevada voters would favor the less-restrictive measure, but he said he realizes his oversight.

“First and foremost, this was just straight anti-smoking,” Herzik said. “The majority of people do not smoke, the majority of people do not like smoking.”

Green said voters may have been confused between the competing measures, and he offered another theory.

“Nevadans are contrary cusses,” he said.

“There were a lot of advertisements saying vote yes on 4, vote no on 5,” he said, speculating many people voted just the opposite – just because.

Source: AP

As the Morning Advertiser exclusively revealed last week, the council has asked Government for the power to designate certain streets no-smoking because of the high density of bars. Anyone

lighting up on the pavement would face a £50 fine.

In its response to the smoking ban consultation, West-minster pointed to the fact that noise complaints in Edinburgh rose by 1,000% after the ban was introduced in March.

“There are already problems outside some licensed premises caused by people standing outside drinking and creating considerable noise for neighbours,” said councillor Audrey Lewis. “We are anxious to avoid this being greatly increased by smokers.

“While clubs are responsible for the behaviour of the people inside their premises, we don’t want to find substantial numbers of them congregating outside where there is the likelihood of extra work for the police.”

But trade leaders insisted the proposal had “no chance” of success.

“It is beyond the scope of the draft regulations,” said British Beer & Pub Association manager of communications Neil Williams. “It’s not workable and I don’t see any prospect for its success. It’s not something Westminster can or should be allowed to do.”

Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers chief executive Nick Bish believes Westminster is setting out its stall to reject all applications for licence variations to allow extended use of outside areas.

“Westminster is using the smoking regulations to paddle another canoe,” he said. “Measures are already in place to deal with noise and it should take advantage of those. It is using smoking to drive people off the streets.”

Enterprise lessee Brian Hebblethwaite, of the Old Nell in Covent Garden’s Drury Lane, added: “This is just another example of West-minster’s anti-pub stance.

“I have had a terrible time with licensing. The police have now even objected to my temporary events notices. I accept the smoking ban, but this is unbelievable. It would make things a lot worse.”

Source: Morning Advertiser

In addition, 66 per cent of respondents are in favour of a smoking ban in cafes, bars and brasseries, and 61 per cent support it in discotheques and night clubs.

Last month, health minister Xavier Bertrand announced his plan to ban smoking in workplaces and restaurants, while allowing people to consume tobacco in casinos, night clubs and certain bars. In France, every bar and restaurant has been ordered to provide a non-smoking area since 1991. This year, smoking was forbidden in all French rail service trains.

Spain and Italy have introduced smoking bans over the past two years. In April, French president Jacques Chirac said his government would look into a prohibition, declaring, “These addictions are major cancer causes. They are diseases and should be treated as such.”

A parliamentary commission tasked with looking into the possibility of enacting a smoking ban in France has not decided whether the issue should be settled by law or through a government decree.

Source: Angus Reid

Dr Laurence Gruer, who is director of public health for NHS Scotland, has proposed the move along with other medical practitioners.

Health minister Andy Kerr described the plan as “an important step forward” in preventing youngsters from lighting up.

Qualified backing has been given from smokers’ lobby group Forest which says smoking “is for adults”.

Changes to the legal smoking age will appear in the Smoking Prevention Group’s final report, which is expected to be sent to Mr Kerr very soon.

Smoking in public places was banned in Scotland in March this year.

Mr Kerr said on Sunday: “I believe, like the smoking ban, raising the age of purchase would be an important step forward, and I’d be very surprised if the group does not recommend raising the age requirement to 18.

“Let’s be clear – we must get a strong message across to young Scots about the dangers of smoking.

“We want to deter people who’re just entering adulthood from taking up a habit which causes huge health problems and leads to thousands of deaths each year.

About 6% of 13-year-olds and 19% of 15-year-olds smoke regularly. More teenage girls than boys take up the habit – 24% compared with 14%.

Forest, which vigorously opposed the ban on lighting up in public places, does not object to the legal age for smoking being changed.

Spokesman Neil Rafferty said: “We’ve no problem with raising the age, it makes sense, as we believe smoking is absolutely for adults.

Source: BBC News

Eighty-six per cent of fathers who smoke continue to do so at home even when their child has been in hospital, a study has found.

Just over half smoked in front of their child, the University of Hong Kong research discovered.

Most women knew their husband’s habits should alter, but family tensions stopped them pressing for change, the Journal of Advanced Nursing reported.

Forest, the smokers’ rights group, said bans would increase smoking at home.

Many of the mothers found it difficult to persuade their husbands to quit smoking
Dr Sophia Chan, University of Hong Kong.

Researchers surveyed the mothers of 1,483 children, with an average age of five, admitted to four major hospitals in Hong Kong.

None of the mothers, who were mainly housewives, smoked, but all of the children’s fathers, who worked in factories, crafts, services and shops, did.

Half of the children suffered from respiratory problems – putting them at high-risk from passive smoking – and 60% of the children had been admitted to hospital more than once.

The researchers offered half of the mothers health advice, booklets and no-smoking stickers and weekly telephone reminders.

The other mothers received no advice or reminders.

Source: BBC