Pepe's Non-Smoking Party Lounge

Turkey going smokefree? Get right out of town

According to this one article, Turkey has the highest smoking rate in the entire world, with a roughly 67 percent smoking rate among men. (That's like the U.S. 50 years ago.)

Nonetheless, Turkey is actually going smokefree. The country in phasing in a law that will eventually ban smoking in all cafes and restaurants and bars. Whether or not it will actually be enforced is another question. In some other European countries with heavy smoking rates such as Spain and Italy, supposedly enforcement of smokefree laws has been pretty lax.

Two major Wisconsin dumbshits

OK, even for Wisconsinites, these two brat-sucking trailer trash bimbos are real lunkheads. They're sitting in a restaurant in Greenfield, Wisconsin (a suburb of Milwaukee), and smoking in front of a two-year-old (which is bad enough just by itself.). Then, they think it's real funny to give the *two-year-old* a cigarette, stick it in his mouth and light it for him because he's begging for a smoke. A waitress got mad and called the cops and these two gene pool losers got cited for giving tobacco to minors.

What a couple of twits. They're definitely the dumbshits of this week. That kid will be smoking by the time he's 13.

Alabama smoking ban fails ... for lack of a vote

The Alabama State Legislature wimped out and adjourned without ever taking a vote on a bill to ban smoking in restaurants. Spineless losers. Just take a vote and take your lumps either way.

The issue is now dead in Alabama for this year. It might come back next year. It actually passed the Alabama Senate.

A judge in Minnesota yesterday ruled that bar "theatre nights" are illegal and a lame attempt to circumvent the state's no smoking ban.

To digress a bit: At the last minute, while passing a smoking ban, the Minnesota State Legislature added a provision allowing actors to smoke onstage during productions. Well, some bars in Minneosta came up with the big idea to turn all of their customers into "actors" during "theatre nights" so they could smoke to their heart's delight. It was sort of cute and funny at first, but after a while, after they got a lot of national attention, it was "all right, you've had your fun." A few weeks later, the State Health Department started cracking down on it, and the first citation, in a town called Elko, went to court.

The judge ruled that the "theatre nights" were obviously a big sham to get around Minnesota's smoking ban, and ruled in favour of a temporary injunction, saying the bar in Elko had to cease and desist.

Of course, some yahoos are saying the judge is wrong and they're going to keep fighting. It's dumb. The only thing they're going to accomplish, if anything at all, is to convince the state Legislature to completely remove the no smoking exemption for stage productions. I seriously doubt very many legitimate theatre companies would really put up much of a fuss about it.

I don't know if this ruling affects other bars that were pulling this stunt. It was my impression it a decision in a local county specifically directed at a specific bar, but it sets the legal precedent, which is important.

Pennsylvania update

Hope in Pennsylvania. The governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, said he veto any smoking bill that came out of a conference committee that pre-empted any local laws, in particular, the law banning smoking in Philadelphia bars and restaurants.

Ooops.

The conference committee was ready to forward a bill to the Legislature, but then suddenly adjourned and made some vague comments that they still have work to do. I guess the governor got wind that they were including a local pre-emption in the proposed state law and put his foot down.

There are elements on this conference committee who have been bound and determined from the get-go to water down and emasculate the proposed smokefree law in Pennsylvania. (The Senate and House passed different versions of the bill, which is why it's in conference committee. It's been in conference committee for months and months now.)

Anti-smoking advocates in Pennsylvania have been really dismayed by what they keep hearing. One of the proposals is for most bars and taverns to be exempted. Another proposal I've heard of is exemptions just for casinos and private clubs (I can live with that.)

Anyway, something might happen in Pennsylvania later this week. We'll see.

Menthol regulation removed

The feds are looking at giving the FDA regulatory authority over tobacco. One of the things the FDA could do is ban flavoured tobacco, since documents have shown that the tobacco companies have marketed strawberry- and cherry-flavoured cigarettes to kids.

However, they exempted menthol from this proposal. Tobacco companies have been adding menthol to cigarettes for decades (In fact, I remember my parents liked menthols. They both went through a big Kool phase for a few years.), mostly because some people didn't like cigarettes because they found the smoke too harsh. For some reason, menthols are really popular with blacks. Lollilard's biggest seller, Newports, is known mostly as a black cigarette.

But, I'm sure because of a lot of lobbying from Big Tobacco, the feds have now taken menthols off the table as "flavoured cigarettes." Strawberry-flavored cigarettes were never a huge seller, but menthols are a major part of the tobacco market.

The L.A. Times did a really good editorial ripping on the feds for this.

Breakthrough in finding tie between smoking and lung cancer

Here is an interesting story about a study showing one of the ways it's believed smoking causes lung cancer. According to the study, tobacco smoke inhibits a protein in lung cells that repairs damaged DNA within the cells. Without the proteins, damaged DNA is allowed to reproduce into new cells, and then those cells become cancerous and start dividing out of control. It doesn't mean that they've cured lung cancer or anything, but it's one more piece in the puzzle.

Still, the idea that smoking actually messes with your DNA continues to blow me away.

Alabama governor supports restaurant smoking ban

The governor of Alabama said he will sign a restaurant smoking ban if it comes to his desk. Such a ban passed the Senate, but might face a big fight in the House. Alabama would become the sixth Southern state to pass a restaurant ban if the bill makes it out of the House. (No Southern state has yet passed a comprehensive smoking ban.)

Sean Penn acting like an idiot -- again

Boy, this guy is a piece of work. After getting in a bunch of trouble for smoking at a press conference in Toronto (Actually, *he* didn't get in trouble at all, the hotel in which he was smoking was forced to pay a several-hundred dollar fine because they didn't stop him.), Sean Penn gets in trouble for lighting up at a press conference in France, where it's illegal to smoke indoors. What a schmoe!

Do you see that Wisconsin? Now you're really surrounded. You won't even be able to go up to Iron Mountain to smoke anymore.

In a shocker, the Michigan Senate yesterday passed a smoking ban. This is despite the fact that the Senate has a Republican majority (21-17), and the president of the Senate is stridently opposed to a smoking ban. Enough Senators urged him to at least let a smoking ban go to a vote, and it passed quite easily 25-12 (With only one Democrat voting against it.) See what happens when you actually let something go to the floor for a vote ... WISCONSIN!!!!

The Michigan House quite some time ago passed a smoking ban. The Senate version is, surprisingly, a little more strict than the House version (which has exemptions for bingo halls and casinos), so it has to go to a conference committee for the differences to be hammered out. This shouldn't be as hair-pulling as Pennsylvania.

So, it looks like, in a bit of a surprise, that Michigan will be the next state to go smokefree.

Lance Armstrong is going to kick smoking's butt

Lance Armstrong testified before Congress yesterday that more needs to be done to fight cancer. Lance is slowly also becoming a big advocate for smokefree laws. He campaigned in Wisconsin to have a smokefree law passed in that state, and before Congress, he said smokefree laws should be in place everywhere (And he proudly pointed out that his hometown of Austin, Texas, is smokefree) to protect nonsmokers. He also said he has spoken to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain about the need for smokefree laws. They told him they think it's a state and local issue, and Armstrong said he agrees. (Although I certainly wouldn't be opposed to a federal smokefree law.)

One thing I completely forgot about this teen smoking study that was released a couple of days ago. This is a study suggesting restaurant smoking bans result in lower teen smoking rates. It was written by a guy named Michael Siegel, who I've written about before. Siegel is (or was) supposedly an anti-tobacco advocate, but he puts out an obsessive and fairly vitriolic blog ripping into the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society and (especially) Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. He claims these groups spread a lot of misinformation and he expends an incredible amount of time and energy nitpicking every anti-tobacco study or every anti-tobacco press release that comes out. He's kind of a pied piper hero to the smokers' rights movement. So, he puts out his own study ... explaining the benefits of smoking bans. Weird, huh? The guy seems like a real crab, but I guess you have to give him credit for being unpredictable and not being slavish to a dogma.

Anyway, in other tobacco news:

Ohio anti-tobacco agency wiped out

The governor of Ohio signed a bill eliminating an anti-tobacco foundation in Ohio. This foundation had its funding (from Ohio's share of the 1998 tobacco settlement) raided for an economic stimulus program, then turned around and sued the state. The state in turn passed legislation eliminating the foundation. Pretty ugly politics. And ultimately, the real loser are smokers and teens.

South Carolina poised to raise cigarette tax

South Carolina has the lowest cigarette tax in the country (An incredible 7 cents a pack, when the national average is something like $1.13 a pack.), but the Palmetto State looks like it might actually raise its cigarette tax to something somewhat reasonable. The South Carolina Senate just passed a 50 cents a pack raise in its cigarette tax. South Carolina would still be roughly the national average, but at least their cigarette tax would be out the Stone Age.

Well, a couple more things I wanted to update about.

The first is a report released last month from the Center for Tobacco Policy and Organizing (The link goes to a *massive* PDF, so I'll skip it), which is an arm of the American Lung Association of California. This report details how much money Big Tobacco has spent in California the past 10 years on lobbying, political contributions and political advertising.

There's some staggering numbers here. Big Tobacco spent $66 million on California politics just in 2005-06 (that was the year California had a ballot measure proposing a $1.85 increase in its cigarette tax. All total since 1999, Big Tobacco has spent $74 million on political contributions, lobbying and commercials in California.

Here's a really *really* interesting trend in some of these numbers. These figures aren't nearly as staggering as that $66 million in one year, but it's still fascinating.

Breaking down contributions to specific state legislators, the numbers show that in 2007, Big Tobacco sent over 82 percent of their political contributions ... to REPUBLICANS!

Get this, they contributed $174,400 to State Assembly candidates -- $144,500 went to Republicans (82.9 percent). In the Senate, Big Tobacco contributed $72,734 to candidates, $59,734 to Republicans (82.1 percent).

This fits the pattern in other states (Oregon, Virginia), with Republicans raking in most of Big Tobacco's money.

What does it mean? Well, I'm sure those Republicans will tell you there is no "quid pro quid" strings attached to that money. You can't really prove beyond the shadow of a doubt there is, but, golly gee, colour me skeptical.

Here's what I think it *really* means. It means that Big Tobacco sees Republicans as sympathetic to their needs, and that Republicans will do their bidding, which means voting against smoking restrictions, and voting against cigarette tax increases.

There's just such a consistent predictable pattern here it's spooky. Recently, in Iowa, nearly 80 percent of the Republicans in the State Legislature voted against that state's smoking ban. In Virginia, a committee chock full of Republicans who received $17,500 in contributions from Big Tobacco voted to unilaterally kill every anti-smoking bill without allowing them to go the full Legislature. In Oregon, a Republican-controlled State Legislature voted against a smoking ban and voted to actually *lower* that state's cigarette taxes ... then it turned out Big Tobacco had contributed over $100,000 to those Republican legislators. (After Democrats got control fo the Legislature, Oregon has since passed a smoking ban, but chickened out on raising cigarette taxes).

It's just too consistent of a pattern to ignore. Maybe there's no "quid pro quid" exactly, but Big Tobacco definitely sees Republicans as being on their team. And Republicans seem perfectly OK with being on Big Tobacco's team. They keep taking their money.

Smoking bans *do* work

To lower teen smoking rates. A study out of Massachussetts has shown that the smoking ban in that state is a factor in lowering the teen smoking rate. By helping to take the "normalcy" out of smoking, teens are getting the message that it isn't necessarily cool for them to smoke. Exciting stuff.

Yes, I'm finally updating my blog. I've let it sit idle for the last three weeks or so, becase:

a) The weather has been better and I'm spending more time outside. (Despite all the crappy weather -- and it's not so much crappy as this is finally a normal spring -- at least that's what the Montana old-timers tell me, I've somehow managed to climb 15,000 feet so far this year.)

b) I've been having iPod and computer issues. I've finally reached the conclusion that it's time to replace my 10-year-old Compaq that still runs *first edition* Windows 98 (And you can all stop laughing anytime now.). 12 Gigs of hard drive space, a 333 MGhz processor and 64 Megs of RAM ... yeah, yeah, I know, a real dinosaur. It was a pretty good computer ... in 1998. You can't hardly do anything on Windows 98 anymore (iTunes? Forget it! Halo? Forget it ... and Halo's an old game.) So I've been shopping around for a new machine. I really want an iMac, but the PC deals out there might be too good to pass up. I just really hate Microsoft.

Anyway, I've checked the clicks on my page, and I've been getting a *ton* of hits on the blog from cute Iowans wanting to read about their new smoking ban. (Well, the one guy from Iowa who left an F-bomb comment isn't so cute. Does your mother know you use language like that, sugarmouth?)

Anyway, I'm back up and running now, so here's a quick update of some smoking stories:

Whirlpool suspended 39 workers for lying about smoking

Some of the smokers' rights people have been howling over this, but I'm sorry, I have a hard time feeling sorry for people who lie and get caught. Whirlpool, like many companies, offers a health premium discount to non-smokers. Whirlpool managers noticed that several people who claimed the discount seemed to be hanging out in front of the Whirlpool headquarters ... smoking. So, they ended up collecting names and suspending 39 people total. Ouch! At the same time, the Chicago Tribune announced they are stopping their smoking health premium surcharge because they felt it was too intrusive.

Atlantic City casinos to go non-smoking

The Atlantic City Council finally bit the bullet and decided to make casinos non-smoking, except for certain sealed-off smokers' lounges. It turned out a lot of casinos had already built these lounges, anyway. Donald Trump has been trying to get other casinos to join him in a lawsuit, but so far, he hasn't "trumped up" much enthusiasm for such lawsuit.

Ewan "Obi Wan" McGregor quits smoking

Ewan McGregor had a bit of a scare with skin cancer and decided it was time to quit smoking. May the Force be with you, Ewan.

Alabama Senate passes smoking ban? Really?

Wow, here was a shocker. A State Senate in a Deep South state passing a smoking ban. Granted, it's purely a restaurant ban, but that's all you can ask in the tobacco-loving South. This one kind of caught me off-guard. It will be interesting to see if it goes anywhere.

Ohio anti-smoking agency on the ropes

After an Ohio anti-smoking agency sued the state of Ohio because the state raided its funds for an economic stimulus package, the state legislature there is now proposing to completely abolish the agency. Jeez. What a mess. And the people who really get hurt are kids and people wanting to quit smoking. This really sucks. It's just a big pissing match and political power game.

B.C., Ontario, Yukon passing car smoking bans

It will soon be illegal to smoke in smoke in cars with kids in B.C., Yukon and Ontario. Pretty much in all of Canada, it will be illegal soon to smoke in a car with kids.

Pennsylvania smoking ban decision pending

OK, Pennsylvania has been trying to get a smoking ban for two or three years now. It's now coming down to the final wire. (And after another horse got killed in the Kentucky Derby, I kind of hate horse racing metaphors.). The thing is now in a House-Senate conference committee. One body passed a strong smoking ban while the other passed a weak one (It was so long ago, I can't remember which.) There are some people on this committee doing their damndest to water this smoking ban down to nothing. At one point, it was proposed that clubs, casinos and bars all be exempted. Another proposal would exempt small bars, but not all bars. Some people are fighting these jerks tooth and nail, but it remains to see what concessions they will win. The latest I've heard is that perhaps casinos and private clubs would be exempted. Anyway, a lot of anti-smoking activists are getting pretty fed up with the Pennsylvania Legislature. These guys are every bit as bad as Wisconsin. Look at how quick and easy smoking bans went in Iowa, Illinois and Nebraska by comparison. Anyway, here is an editorial from a Pittsburgh newspaper telling legislators to get their act together.

Minnesota "theater nights" go to court

The State of Minnesota is suing two bars that insist that they should be able to hold smoking theater nights. (A lot of bars have just dropped this fight. It may have only been 30 or 40 bars total doing this.) A decision from a judge on one of the bars is expected this week. And a second lawsuit has been filed.

Pub business down in Ireland .. but not because of a smoking ban

I thought this was a fascinating article. We actually printed it in our paper. It was about how the pub business in Ireland has declined dramatically the past couple of years ... but it's not because of a smoking ban!

It's because the socio-economic state of Ireland is completely different now. And one of the casualties is pubs. Ironically, the economy of Ireland is booming and this is one of the things hurting pubs. The Irish now have better things to do than hang out in a pub. They go to discoteques, they travel to the French Riveria. Meanwhile, a lot of younger Irish people have moved to Dublin for the high-paying jobs. That means the old-fashioned pubs in smaller towns are seeing hard times. One person quoted in this article said Ireland probably had too many pubs, anyways. The decline of pubs in Ireland has been cited by some smokers' rights groups as a result of smoking bans. It just isn't that simple.

First, Iowa

Well, the anti-smoking ban group, called COBRA (Because they're about to strike back -- get it!), has come out and publicly vowed that they are going to file litigation to overturn Iowa's new smoking ban.

Sigh!

They just don't get it.

OK, if any of you COBRA dingbats are reading (And someone from R.J. Reynolds headquarters is reading this blog -- that's right, I know all about you -- maybe you can forward a link to COBRA), NO state smoking ban has EVER been overturned. Lawsuits in Connecticut, Colorado, Ohio, New Jersey, Nevada, Hawaii and probably a few other states have all failed. You're just throwing your money away.

Some COBRA nitwit was quoted saying they are fully confident they are going to win because the Iowa smoking ban is clearly unconstitutional. They are going to use the exemption for casino floors as the basis of their argument -- since the law isn't being applied equally to all businesses. (Actually an interesting argument, but many, many, many have tried that approach and it's yet to work -- at least with a statewide ban.)

Unfortunately, litigation against smoking bans is virtually automatic now, which is part of the reason a lot of state legislatures are reluctant to pass them. But, that litigation almost always fails. A few local bans have been overturned because either they conflicted with state law or they contained exemptions for certain kinds of businesses.

More Iowa silliness

State Democrats are proposing cutting about $500,000 from the state's anti-smoking advertising budget because the state agency in charge of the program took out some ads a few weeks ago in favour of an Iowa smoking ban. This infuriarated Iowa Repubnicans who were opposed to the ban and didn't feel this was an appropriate use of public funds. So, Democrats offered to cut about half a million from the agency's budget (approximately the cost of the pro smoking-ban ads) to appease the pissed-off Republicans.

Geez. More stupid Repubnicans. About 80 percent of the GOP members in the Iowa Legislature voted against the smoking ban, but ultimately, they lost. It passed.

Ohio craziness

A judge yesterday imposed a restraining order on the state raiding their tobacco funds for a jobs program. The money was originally controlled by a state tobacco education agency. After the money raid was announced, the agency tried to transfer the funds to private foundations, but the state Legislature quickly passed a bill forbidding the agency from doing this. The agency then filed litigation against the state. It's all a big mess, and a big misuse of the 1998 Tobacco Settlement dollars. Unfortunately, the state is probably going to win this fight, since there is nothing in the 1998 Tobacco Settlement that tells states how they *have* to use the money. They can use it however they want. Most states, unfortunately, are using that money purely as a windfall to balance their budgets without having to raise property taxes.

This whole Ohio fight involves about $230 million.

Iowa is the newest state to go smokefree. Both the House and the Senate approved the statewide smoking ban today. The governor is expected to sign it. (And doesn't the Iowa state flag look suspiciously like the flag of France?)

So, Wisconsin, you are now virtually *completely* surrounded. There's no where to hide. You're surrounded. (Well, there's still Northern Michigan if you want to count that.)

I know I harp on this, but it's just absolutely amazing to me the partisan breakdown of these anti-tobacco votes. Iowa is really, really startling. It was a fairly close vote in the both the House (54-45 in favour) and the Senate (28-22 in favour.) Overall, only 12 Repugnican legislators voted in favour of the ban (44 voted against.) For the Democrats, 70 voted in favour of it and 13 voted against it. That means 79 percent of Repubnicans voted against the smoking ban ... while 84 percent of the Democrats voted in favour of it. This pattern is remarkably consistent throughout the country ... and I don't buy the argument that Repubnicans are just looking out for small businesspeople, not after what has been shown in Oregon and Virginia, with Republican state legislators taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from Big Tobacco.

Anyway, welcome to the club, Iowa.

Kansas City voters pass smoking ban

The other big news today is that Kansas City, Mo., passed a smoking ban by a 52-48 percent vote. What's remarkable about this is that Missouri is a real hotbed of the smokers' rights movement, so to get any kind of anti-smoking measure passed in Missouri is good news. Missouri is so anti-smoking rules that I honestly didn't know if this was going to pass. There has been virtually little to no movement on smoking measures in that state the last few years. One sorehead smokers' rights advocate out of Missouri (who doesn't even live in Kansas City, he lives in St. Louis, but he still took out radio ads in Kansas City against it.) is already whining that it's all the media's fault. Oh, brother. Sore loser. When in doubt, blame the media. Whatever.

The measure passed despite R.J. Reynolds spending $220,000 to defeat it. The American Cancer Society and American Lung Association spent $240,000 for advertising in favour of it.

Speaking of Wisconsin

A new poll out of Wisconsin shows that 69 percent of the people in that state are in favour of a smoking ban. This is up from a similar poll done a year ago showing 64 percent approval. Hey, even 49 percent of smokers are in favour of a smoking ban.

Geez, how high do these numbers have to get before legislators in Wisconsin get off their cheese-addled butts and pass a smokefree law?

Tobacco money grab in Ohio

This is the one story I read today that made me mad. The state of Ohio needs money for an economic stimulus program, so they decided to raid the budget of the state's anti-tobacco foundation. This is money that the state gets from the 1998 Tobacco Settlement and goes toward tobacco education and cessation. Well, they don't want to raise anyone's taxes, so they went after this foundation's budget. The foundation tried to transfer the money to other organizations, but the state legislature passed an emergency bill to freeze the money. The foundation's budget will now go from $190 million to $40 million.

Yet again, it's another example of the Tobacco Settlement money not being used for what it was intended. A real outrage in my opinion.

OK, Iowa has a legitimate smoking ban ready to go. A conference committee passed a smoking ban (All four Republicans on the committee voted against it. What a shock.). It includes a ban on bars and restaurants, but not casinos floors. A Senate version had a ban on bars, restaurants and casinos, while a House law had no bans for bars, casinos ... or even restaurants (which begs the question of what was even the point of that law?), so this bill is a compromise. The only thing removed from the ban was the casino floor provision.

It will be interesting to see how the ban does in the House and Senate. Neither body can mess with the bill. No amendments, no changes, strictly and up-or-down vote. I expect it will pass in the Senate.

The Iowa House is more confusing. The House initially passed a pretty strong smoking ban, but then a couple of weeks later, the House turned around (at the behest of a handful of legislators) and passed the incredibly weak and worthless smoking ban that didn't actually ban smoking much of anywhere. So, who knows what will happen in the Iowa House? A vote might happen as early as today.

Brit homeowners suing over smoking ban

Here is a really interesting lawsuit out of England. A couple that owns a flat next door to a pub is suing over that country's smoking ban, arguing that the ban has made their property unsalable. They live right next door to a pub, and because of the smoking ban, smokers are hanging out in front of the pub at all hours of the night, leaving their cigarette butts all over the place and making a mess of things. They kind of have a legitimate point. One of the unintended consequences of smoking bans, I guess. Couldn't they just put a stand-up ashtray outside and ask smokers to please use it (We all know a lot of them still wouldn't. That's one of the things that mystifies me about so many smokers -- the throwing butts away and making messes. I know not all smokers do it ... but a lot of them. We've had a real problem with it at our condo. The condo owners have had to tell smokers two or three times not to throw their butts all over the place.)

To prove the point, here is another story from England about how since the smoking ban went into place, cigarette butt litter is a huge problem in London. Messy smokers! I don't feel sorry for them. Learn to use an ashtray. Learn to use a garbage can.

As you might expect, the whole town was abuzz yesterday with the visit of Barack Obama. More than 8,000 people packed the basketball arena, and another 500 braved really cold and chilly weather to watch on a Jumbotron in the football stadium. (Look at how much snow we still have in Missoula on April 5.)

The photo that made all the national wires was someone having their baby surfed through the crowd so Obama could give him a hug. I wouldn't have my baby surfing through a big crowd like that. You don't know if someone isn't paying any attention and might drop her.

I listened to his speech on a little local AM radio station. (I literally had five loads of laundry to do. Seriously. Five loads.) It was a little weird, because it was a direct feed into his soundboard, so he sounded great, but you couldn't hear the crowd at all. So, there would be long pauses of dead air every few minutes on the radio.
Anyway, I think my favourite quote from his was "I shouldn't even be here ... a black guy ... with a funny name ... and big ears..."
He also pointed out that everyone calls him naive. "They say you've got your head in the clouds."

Well, he pointed out that women who fought to get the vote were called naive, that people in the civil rights movement were called naive, that Abraham Lincoln was called naive to oppose slavery. Calling someone naive is just a way of saying you don't actually care enough yourself to get behind something worthwhile.

One thing I was struck by is he kept saying "y'all." He said "I know y'all care about gas prices here in Montana. You have a long way to drive to get anywhere." And I kept thinking, "wait a minute, he grew up in Hawaii. You don't say y'all in Hawaii."

Another thing that was cute is some Canadians came down from Alberta to see him. (Though I got pretty annoyed that our reporter wrote they were from Calgary, *Ontario*. Geez, Calgary's like an eight-hour drive from here.)

It's been good news for Obama. He's doing great in the national polls against Clinton; he's rising in Pennsylvania against Clinton. He will win North Carolina and Oregon. He'll probably lose in Pennsylvania and Indiana, but not huge. I expect he'll win here in Montana, but we only have 23 delegates.

Did you see these photos of a red-tailed hawk attacking a little girl at Fenway Park the other day? Poor girl! Poor hawk! They took her nest away.

Pretty amazing photos, huh? What's kind of funny is that the girl's name was Alexa Rodriguez.

The girl was OK. They rushed her to an emergency room in Boston, but she didn't even need stitches. When a saw-whet owl clawed me at Wolf Hollow a few years ago, I needed six stitches in my pinkie. (I had his dinner in my hand, and apparently, I didn't drop it quickly enough for his liking.) And saw-whet owls are about six inches tall. Imagine what a real raptor's talons could do to you.

Did you hear Barack Obama is coming to Missoula Saturday? Tickets sold out within a couple of hours, so of course, I had no chance to go. But, I get to lay out the front page with him, so that's pretty exciting. (Maybe Barack will come by the laundromat where I'm doing my laundry Saturday morning.)

Oh, and some psuedo-Republican wench is also flying into town Sunday on her broom. Who cares about her? It should be a very exciting weekend in town. I'm really looking forward to it.

It's so cool that Montana and our 23 puny delegates actually count for something. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and Clinton come back to Missoula again before the June primary.

OK, I'm not a doctor, so I don't exactly what all the ramifications are of this story, but it's still kind of exciting. Researchers in France, Iceland and the U.S. have apparently tracked down the genes that might be behind lung cancer. It helps explain that while 85 percent of the people who get lung cancer are smokers, only about 15 percent of smokers ever get lung cancer. Basically, if you have two of these genetic markers and are a smoker, you have a 23 percent chance of getting lung cancer.

Researchers were quick to point out that people who don't have these gene markers are safe from disease if they continue to smoke. These genes have nothing to do with heart disease, emphysema, COPD and other kinds of cancers smokers are prone to. About 440,000 die every year in the U.S. from smoking-related diseases. Less than one-third -- 130,000 -- of those smokers are dying of lung cancer. To think you can still smoke and cheat death if you don't have these genetic markers is pretty stupid.

A confusing part of this story is that these genes are also apparently tied to nicotine addiction, as well. Weird.

What's exciting, though, is that maybe it could result in gene treatments for lung cancer ... and for nicotine addiction.

I've been working on a special section at work, so haven't had time to work on the blog. Here's a rundown of great smoking stories this week:

FDA regulation passes Congressional Committee

A Congress House Committee passed a bill to give the Federal Drug Administration regulatory authority over tobacco. It is expected to go to the full House of Representatives for a vote soon. This bill could mean that the FDA could have total control (I.e., eliminate) over cigarette advertising, and could order tobacco companies to remove nicotine from their products because it is a drug.

RJ Reynolds getting involved in Kansas City ban

RJ Reynolds has spent $220,000 to try and defeat a smoking ban in Kansas City, Mo. These guys have absolutely no shame. They've spent millions the past few years trying to defeat anti-cigarette measures on state ballots. Now they're moving on to local ballot measures.

RJ Reynolds has had mixed success. They've been very successful at stopping cigaratte tax increases at the ballot box (Oregon, California and Missouri), but they've failed completely to stop smoking ban votes (Arizona, Nevada and Ohio.). It will be interesting to see how this vote comes out, which is later this month.

Smoking, cell phones banned in Nova Scotia and Quebec

Laws went into effect this week in both Quebec and Nova Scotia banning smoking in cars with kids and banning cell phone use by vehicle drivers. I expect smoking in cars with kids will be illegal throughout Canada by 2009.

Class action decertified in "Light" cigarette case

A federal court in New York decertified a lawsuit against Big Tobacco over false advertising that "light" cigarettes are somehow less dangerous than regular cigarettes. This is potentially an $800 billion lawsuit (Not a typo -- $800 billion.) What this means is that anyone suing Big Tobacco over false advertising has to do it individually, not as a group. The plaintiffs plan to appeal.

A double-whammy of court victories. First, a federal appeals court upheld the city of Austin's smoking ban. This ban had been made confusing by a lower court judge, who ruled that bar owners couldn't be legally required to enforce the ban against smokers. The appeals court said that's silly, and upheld the city.

Secondly, the South Carolina Supreme Court today ruled that local communities in that state can impose smoking bans. Some local bans in South Carolina had their laws upheld by the courts, while other courts overturned other cities' bans. It was very confusing. It will be interesting to see if the state legislature does a smoking ban now that they've been ruled legal. The state legislature in South Carolina came within three votes of passing a statewide smoking ban two years ago, but the legislature held off this year on the issue because of the case before the Supreme Court.

Column about stinky smokers

This column about negative perceptions of smokers really struck a chord with me because of a couple of experiences I had with smokers this past week. On Friday, I was in the bank depositing my refund check, and a guy came up behind me who absolutely, utterly *stank* of cigarette smoke. I mean, he reeked. I literally almost gagged. I tried not to be rude, but it was genuinely awful. Then on Sunday, I went to the Old Post to watch the Davidson-Kansas game and a guy next to my absolutely *reeked* of cigarette smoke. In an hour, he went outside three times to smoke, and I mean he just *stank.*

Which leads me to my point. I am absolutely, utterly convinced that smoking must destroy smokers' ability to smell and taste, because no one would knowingly go around smelling that bad. I mean, most people know they stink if they haven't showered for a while ... and they become self-conscious about it. I figure smokers can't possibly be aware of just how bad they smell. The woman who wrote this column for Inside the Bay Area (A San Francisco Webzine) said she got a really negative reaction from smokers because she wrote about a survey that said many non-smokers find smokers rude and inconsiderate. One of the people who agreed with her column said that smokers aren't inconsiderate; it's just that the physical addiction to the nicotine takes over and they forget all about how their habit might be affecting others.

Again, I don't think these two people I was standing/sitting next to were rude. I think they were just utterly clueless.

No more free chew for ballplayers

Here is an interview with Joe Charboneau, a one-year wonder with the Cleveland Indians in the 1970s, who talks about in the old days, baseball clubs literally used to give out free Red Man chew to all the players. Now, almost no one does that because a well-known chewer for the Dodgers, Brett Butler, got throat cancer about 10 years ago. The teams give away sunflowers seeds and bubble gum instead. (Sunflower seeds are gross -- and addictive, but at least they don't give you mouth cancer.) I've always thought chewing in baseball is a bizarre custom. A lot of players still chew. In fact, chewing in general is pretty weird. It's just so incredibly gross, and why would anyone want to take the risk of mouth, oral, lip, tongue and jaw cancer.
This article reminded me that when I covered baseball as a sports editor, there not only were kid ballplayers chewing tobacco, I even saw *Babe Ruth* age kids chewing tobacco.

Johnny Depp desperately wants to quit smoking

Here is a little blurb on American expatriate actor Johnny Depp, who is a heavy smoker, and is desperately trying to quit for the sake of his kids. Here's one huge difference between Johnny Depp and Leonardo DiCaprio, another Hollywood smokestack. Johnny Depp hardly smokes in any of his movies! Leonardo smokes in all of his movies.

The reason I point this out is that one of the stupid smokers' forums a few months ago, someone pointed out all the famous Hollywood star smokers who have died from lung cancer, and some dumb smoker spouted off about Johnny Depp. "Well, Johnny Depp smokes and he looks pretty healthy." Depp in this article says it's just about the dumbest habit imaginable. I wish there was a way I could send this article to that dumb smoker.