People Ban: NM State

By Jonathan On Jul 5, 2017

State Update

Big Tobacco wins big payback from New Mexico
State on the hook for $10 million, maybe more

October 15, 2013
By Katie Kim
ALBUQUERQUE (KRQE) – The state could face a multimillion-dollar penalty in funds supposed to help the most vulnerable New Mexicans because of a mistake made a decade ago.

Each year, states receive payment from big tobacco companies to help cover medical costs of treating patients suffering from smoking-related illnesses and to support various research programs.? The money comes from the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that resolved lawsuits against the companies.

New Mexico gets around $40 million from the big tobacco companies that is funneled into the state’s Tobacco Settlement Permanent Fund. Half of the money is then allocated to the Tobacco Settlement Program Fund and spent on programs like UNM’s Cancer Center and the Department of Health’s breast and cervical cancer screening.

But New Mexico could see up to a $10 million reduction, possibly more, for next year, according to Assistant Attorney General Ari Biernoff.

In exchange for big tobacco’s payments, the MSA called for states to regulate smaller tobacco companies not part of the settlement by forcing them to turn over a share of their profits into separate bank accounts in order to level the playing field. But an independent arbitration panel made up of three retired federal judges ruled in favor of big tobacco companies last month saying New Mexico did not enforce those laws regulating smaller companies in the year 2003.

As a result, New Mexico will see a large reduction in tobacco settlement payments a decade later.

Biernoff said it was too early to pinpoint exactly how much of a reduction New Mexico will face, but he said the cuts could continue for years to come. Biernoff said New Mexico did not significantly change its practices in regulating companies in 2004, 2005, up until last year.

“Future years, we expect, will be the subject of dispute,” Biernoff said.

The result would be tens of millions of dollars in cuts to programs helping treat people with cancer and other deadly diseases.

According to Biernoff, the arbitration panel said New Mexico did not try hard enough to regulate smaller tobacco companies.

“None of the states had a 100 percent success rates,” Biernoff said. “This was a new law (in 2003) that had only been on the books for a few years. I think the states were still working the best ways, the most efficient ways, the most effective ways to enforce these laws.”

But Biernoff said the punishment New Mexico faces does not match the grievance.

“We didn’t regulate such a small number of cigarettes that we were supposed to regulate.? They don’t even fill up a single trailer truck,” Biernoff said.

Biernoff adds the amount those companies should have set aside in 2003 totals $100,000.

“For a shortfall around $100,000, we’re facing a penalty that’s in the many millions of dollars,” Biernoff said.

Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque, was chairwoman of the Tobacco Settlement Revenue Oversight Committee in 2003. She said the Legislature, the attorney general and the administration should take responsibility for the penalty.

But Chasey said no one in New Mexico could have predicted how far big tobacco would take the fine print of the settlement.

“Perhaps we didn’t realize the rigorous requirements we were under,” Chasey said. “I wish we knew the extent to which we were going to have to prove these efforts.

“If it ends up being a $10 million cut or more, that’s going to affect us, and it’s going to be very devastating.”

Doctors at the forefront of cancer research and treatment at the University of New Mexico’s Health Sciences Center echo that sentiment.

“We would be severely hurt with a cut in funding,” Dr. Martin Edelment said. “These are everyday people. There’s no distinction when it comes to who gets diseases.”

That couldn’t ring more true for Emma Kotobi and her family. Kotobi’s father died from lung cancer two years ago. Her mother was diagnosed with lung cancer in August.

“They were both smokers. They both smoked most of their life,” Kotobi said. “People hear about, you know, smoking can cause lung cancer and stuff like that, but it doesn’t happen to everybody, and I think we kind of feel like it’s not going to happen to us.”

“The tobacco industry is not doing nearly enough for what they’re doing to New Mexicans,” Biernoff said. “And even then, they’re trying to take back some of the money, and that’s why we’re fighting this.”

Biernoff said the attorney general is still reviewing the ruling to see if the state will challenge the penalty. He said reversing in arbitration ruling is more difficult than a judge’s ruling.
Read More.

Constitution doesn’t give anyone the right to breathe
November 5, 2007

Editor,

I am deeply distressed with everybody on this campus who thinks there is a constitutional right to breathe. That’s correct. All you people whining about smokers ought to get it straight: There’s no such thing as the right to breathe, so just get over it.

True, there is a right to free speech, and you have to breathe to speak, but you don’t have to breathe to write, and this letter proves it. I’m calling for a national ban on breathing, and it starts here at UNM. The “All-University, All-College Breatheout” will make headlines. For motivation, just think how disgusting it is to walk through a group of breathers clustered around the Humanities Building entrance where gross clouds of stale, used breath clings to your hair and clothing as you are forced to cower by on the way to class.

Maybe some of these offenders omitted brushing teeth this morning. Maybe some had the Chick-fil-A garlic and castor oil breakfast burrito. This intrusive and obnoxious inhaling and exhaling must come to an end. It’s destroying the contemplative atmosphere that’s supposed to mark academia, and there’s no scientific proof that breathing has ever done anything for anyone anyhow, so let’s have a bit of willpower and just cut it out.

The breatheout will begin noon on Wednesday. The concrete tunnel sculpture by Mitchell Hall will serve as our gathering point. A crowd of dedicated students and faculty will show the world what academic discipline is all about.

James Burbank
UNM student

Ban on smoking at UNM doesn’t have factual basis

10/24/07
Editor,

With all the debate regarding smoking on campus, it seems smokers have become a kind of ineffable liability and a predominant indictment of carcinogens on otherwise virgin lungs. However, it is farcical that smokers have been backed into this position based on what is largely an emotional, knee-jerk response that has no basis in the facts or any kind of personal responsibility.

According to the American Lung Cancer Association, about 27 percent of 18-to-24 year-olds are smokers. Therefore, we are talking about, at best, a sizable minority of students who are smokers. It is, however, unreasonable to assume that all of this group is smoking all the time while they are on campus. If we are to assume that half of this group is smoking at any given time, we are then talking about one in eight students. This, it is important to note, is a generously liberal estimate, and the real number is almost certainly lower at any given time.

It is also safe to assume that UNM has an unabatedly abundant space to walk from one place to another and that the benches and tables outside are ample and allow a person to discriminate in their choice of seating. I think everyone also agrees that smokers do not go out of their way to blow smoke on passersby as if they were Puff the Magic Dragon. So, a pedestrian only has to worry about second-hand smoke from, at most, one in eight people, which, if they are responsible, they can easily avoid due to the open walkways and sidewalks the campus provides.

The point of this is that indoor-smoking bans are based on the fact that the smoke gestates in a closed environment where smoke is unavoidable and unable to circulate. However, in an outdoor setting, someone who is genuinely concerned for their health can rather obviously take measures to eliminate their exposure to second-hand smoke. While some may argue that this fraction of people cannot be avoided, there are numerous other health concerns they evade on a daily basis that are not preached against.

Smoke-free advocates would likely agree that being hit by a bicycle is a health concern. Bicycles and skateboards traverse the same sidewalks as pedestrians and are moving at higher speeds that make them more difficult to avoid. However, pedestrians are able to avoid these objects, at least enough not to crusade for their removal from campus.

While an argument may be made against smoking in the immediate vicinity of doorways and the like, there is absolutely no logical argument for a tobacco-free campus that can be legitimately made. When you consider that smokeless tobacco use would also be banned, it becomes obvious that second-hand smoke only serves as a literal smokescreen for an agenda to prevent people from participating in what is becoming an increasingly socially unacceptable habit.

Richard Griner
UNM student

New Mexico Smoking Ban
June 17, 2007
Well, things hit home yesterday here in Ruidoso. The state-wide smoking ban went into effect Friday. Casinos are exempt but one place I like to eat banned smoking anyway. The buffet at The Inn of the Mountain Gods has been non-smoking but I never had time to smoke anyway. At least you can eat in the bar and smoke. K-Bob’s Steak House sold out a couple months ago. The Western Steak and Grill took over and went non-smoking ahead of schedule. They also did away with one of the best salad bars I’ve ever come across. I left without eating the last trip and haven’t been back.
Read more

Smoke ban `right thing to do,’ says guv

March 14, 2007
Kate Nash
SANTA FE — The smoke in New Mexico bars and restaurants will soon fade into oblivion under a statewide smoking ban signed by Gov. Bill Richardson.

The governor called the measure “good public health policy” and “the right thing to do.”

“More importantly, the advantages of a law like this dramatically reducing exposure to second-hand smoke . . . far outweigh any potential administrative problems,” Richardson said as he signed the bill Tuesday.

Rep. Al Park, an Albuquerque Democrat, appeared almost overwhelmed at the bill-signing ceremony.

“This is something that’s actually going to save lives,” he said.

Richardson, who occasionally smokes cigars, said he decided late Monday to support the bill.

“Each year, more than 53,000 die in the United States as a result of this exposure. Second-hand smoke is the third-leading cause of preventable death in the United States. . . . In my mind it doesn’t make any sense to continue to allow smoking in bars and restaurants,” he said.

The measure prohibits smoking in all workplaces across the state, including bars and restaurants. It takes effect June 15. Individuals violating the ban would face a $100 fine for a first violation.

Members of the House unanimously had passed the measure, and senators agreed to it on a 27-9 vote.

Cheryl Ferguson of New Mexicans Concerned About Tobacco applauded the bill.

“This is wonderful for New Mexico; it’s the best public health measure that could be done.”

Ferguson said about 1,500 calls were made to the Governor’s Office on the issue.

“There was a huge outpouring of support,” she said.

“So obviously, there’s just no opposition. It’s a bipartisan issue and the right thing to do for the state.”

The bill is in honor of former first lady Dee Johnson, who worked during her time in the Roundhouse to ban smoking in the state Capitol.

Richardson, a second-term Democrat who is running for president, said he hadn’t received pressure from tobacco lobbyists on the measure.

During his campaigns in 2002 and 2006, Richardson received at least $50,000 from tobacco companies and lobbyists for tobacco companies, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics (followthemoney.org), which tracks campaign contributions from different industries.

Ferguson said anti-cancer advocates will work now to educate the public on the new law.

“We helped create this, so we want to help implement it,” she said.

“We’ve got communities that this is going to be brand-new for,” she said.

Thirteen New Mexico communities, including Santa Fe and Albuquerque, already have imposed smoking bans. The new law would allow cities and counties to have stronger ordinances, but not weaker ones.

There are exceptions to the prohibition. Among them: retail tobacco stores, cigar bars, casinos, private clubs, and one-person offices not generally open to the public.

Governor signs smoking ban??
By DEBORAH BAKER
March 13, 2007

SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) – Smoking will be banned across New Mexico in bars, restaurants, stores and other workplaces under legislation signed Tuesday by Gov. Bill Richardson.

“This is good public policy. It’s the right thing to do,” Richardson said as he signed the prohibition, which will take effect June 15.

New Mexico becomes the 17th state _ including neighboring Arizona and Colorado _ to establish a broad smoke-free policy.

The legislation is named for the late Dee Johnson, the former first lady who championed a smoking ban in the state Capitol. Johnson died in December.

“I’m sure she would have led the fight” for the statewide prohibition, Richardson said.

The governor _ an occasional cigar-smoker _ said the ban’s supporters made a last-minute push to persuade him to sign the legislation.

Thirteen New Mexico communities, including Santa Fe and Albuquerque, have imposed smoking bans. The new law would allow cities and counties to have stronger ordinances, but not weaker ones.
?
There are exceptions to the prohibition. Among them: retail tobacco stores, cigar bars, casinos, private clubs, and one-person offices not generally open to the public.?

Smoking-ban proposal heads to governor

March 10, 2007
By BARRY MASSEY | Associated Press
Legislation allows for smoking in designated outside areas

Smoking would be banned statewide in bars, restaurants, stores and workplaces if Gov. Bill Richardson signs a bill that cleared the Legislature on Friday.

If the proposal is enacted, New Mexico will become the 17th state — joining the neighboring states of Arizona and Colorado — with a law establishing a broad smoke-free policy.

Thirteen New Mexico communities, including Santa Fe and Albuquerque, have imposed smoking bans. The legislation would permit cities and counties to implement stronger bans, but local restrictions couldn’t be less than provided for in the bill.

The legislation provides some exceptions where smoking could continue, including retail tobacco stores, cigar bars, casinos, bingo parlors, private and fraternal clubs, one-person offices not generally open to the public, hotel rooms where smoking is allowed, sites for American Indian ceremonies and private homes, except when they’re used for commercial child or adult care.

The governor, who is a cigar smoker, said Friday that he had not made a decision on whether to sign the smoking-ban proposal.

Supporters of the measure say it will help protect people from cancer as well as lung and heart disease associated with smoking.

“Research has shown that laws such as this one will make a huge difference in the number of heart attacks that will occur as a result of secondhand smoke,” Julia Valdez of the American Heart Association said in a statement.

The legislation provides for smoking in designated outside areas of buildings, such as a patio at a bar or restaurant. However, those smoking areas could not be near doorways and windows, which might allow smoke to filter into a building.

New Mexico already has a ban on smoking in public places, including the Capitol.

The legislation would extend the ban to most private businesses, indoor workplaces — including lunchrooms, auditoriums, stairways, restrooms — as well as taxis, buses and public transit.

The bill is named after former first lady Dee Johnson, who died in December and had campaigned to ban smoking in the Capitol.

The bill cleared its final hurdle Friday when the House agreed to changes made by the Senate in the earlier House-passed proposal.

The smoking ban measure is HB 283.

Smoking ban breezes through House

2/16/07?
SANTA FE — A statewide ban on smoking in indoor workplaces, including bars and restaurants, cleared the House so easily today that even its sponsor was surprised.

House Judiciary Chairman Al Park, D-Albuquerque, said he thought there would be a couple of dissenting votes.

Instead, the smoking ban breezed through on a unanimous vote with no debate.

Under the bill, smoking would be permitted near buildings as long as it was away from doorways, windows and ventilation systems.

It would be allowed in designated outside smoking areas and in retail tobacco stores, cigar bars, casinos, bingo parlors, private clubs and fraternal organizations and smoking-permitted hotel rooms.

It would also be allowed in private homes except when they’re used for commercial child or adult care.

Las Vegas rejects statewide smoking ban

2/9/07
LAS VEGAS, N.M. — The Las Vegas City Council has decided not to back a statewide ban on smoking in restaurants, officers and other public places.

The council voted 5-3 Thursday against the resolution.

Councilor Michael Gallegos voted against the resolution but said he would have supported the move 10 years ago.

However, he said he believes a ban is unnecessary today because only a handful of restaurants still allow smoking.

Councilor Eugene Romero favors anti-smoking education and prohibiting smoking in government buildings, since they’re owned by everyone.

But he said it’s wrong for the government to tell businesses to bar smoking.

He said that’s taking away freedom of choice.

New Mexico needs to consider state smoking ban

11/12/2006

In the Nov. 7 elections, Arizona and Ohio passed very strong statewide clean indoor air laws that prohibit smoking in most indoor public places and workplaces. Isn’t it time for New Mexico to do likewise?

Secondhand smoke is recognized by the medical profession as a serious health problem. A 2006 report from the U.S. Surgeon General, “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke,” summarizes the results of hundreds of medical studies related to secondhand smoke. One of its conclusions is “the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.”

Most customers who want to avoid secondhand smoke can easily take their business elsewhere, but employees cannot. Laws like Arizona’s and Ohio’s protect everyone. New Mexicans need clean indoor air too.

State Senate will reconsider smoking ban through House bill

March 6, 2005
By William Thompson: Quay County Sun
william_thompson@link.freedom.com

The New Mexico House of Representatives recently voted 49-12 to institute the Clean Air Act, a bill designed to prohibit smoking in all public places including restaurants but excluding bars.

The bill is now being debated in the senate; however the senate voted Thursday on a similar bill that failed to pass by six votes.

The bill must pass the senate and Governor Bill Richardson’s approval to go into affect.

Clint Harden, the state senator representing Quay County said he is opposed to the bill because he thinks a smoking ban should be decided at the local level.

“I will vote against a statewide ban and the for rights of Tucumcari, Clovis and other cities,” Harden said. “Senators that believe in local control will vote against it.”

The bill would mandate that a person charged with smoking in an un- authorized area would be fined $100.
Representative Brian Moore said he was one of the few in the house to vote against the measure.

“I think the issue should be left up to the cities,” Moore said. “I don’t smoke, myself, but I have some issues with the bill. Police and fire department officials would be tasked with enforcing the smoking ban and those people are overworked already.”

Moore owns a grocery store in Clayton. He said the bill, if passed, would inconvenience employees who smoke and even some customers.

“My employees who smoke would have to go outside more than 100 feet from the store entrance in order to smoke,” Moore said, “and even though most customers don’t smoke inside the store I don’t like the idea of personally having to tell one of my customers that they can’t smoke and they may be fined $100.”

Ross Harmon, general manager of K-Bob’s Steakhouse, said he has mixed feelings about the proposed legislation.

“Personally, it suits me fine because I’m not a smoker,” Harmon said, “but we get a lot of tourists who come in off I-40, and many of them smoke. They would have a fit.”
Susan Lease, director of the Quay County Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program, said she definitely wants the bill to pass.

“I want it to pass because smoking is contributing to high medical costs and it is hurting our children,” she said.

Yvonne Braziel, co-owner of Del’s Restaurant said she has a problem with the government deciding the issue.

“I prefer the government not make the choice,” Braziel said.

“It would be hard for me to make the switch to a completely non-smoking restaurant because I am not anti-smoking. I may contact my senator about the issue.”
http://www.qcsunonline.com