State Update
Resident: I won’t abide by ‘unenforceable’ PHA smoking ban
11/5/2013
By ETHAN SHOREY, Valley Breeze Staff Writer
PAWTUCKET – A resident of a downtown subsidized housing facility says he plans to keep smoking despite a new smoking ban, and will file a legal challenge if anyone tries to punish him for it.
Jerry Daniels, a resident of Fogarty Manor on Roosevelt Avenue, told The Breeze that new anti-smoking policies being implemented in the city are “unenforceable,” “unnecessary,” and are “only causing problems.”
Already there are no smoking signs out in front of Fogarty Manor, said Daniels, and residents are being asked to walk at least 50 feet away from the facility to smoke. But that’s not stopping him from continuing to smoke even in areas where signs are placed prominently.
“This is my act of civil disobedience,” said Daniels. “I will smoke in my apartment and I will smoke outside.”
Daniels said he is just waiting “to be violated” by someone from the PHA before he proceeds with a lawsuit against the organization. Already he has been approached twice by security and asked to stop smoking, said Daniels, but he refused and was then left alone.
Officials from the Pawtucket Housing Authority will find it is “impossible” to enforce the smoking ban when it goes into full effect next August, says Daniels, and he and others plan to keep smoking even once it’s in place.
“There’s no way to enforce a smoking ban without violating our rights,” he said. “This smoking ban did not start from the ground up and is not an answer to people’s concerns that this place be smoke-free. It came from bureaucrats.”
If the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had made a blanket rule across the country against smoke, he would have “no problem with it,” said Daniels, but instead they left it up to local housing authorities, which are dependent on the federal organization for funding.
As of Aug. 1, 2014, all residents of four Pawtucket facilities that house elderly and disabled residents – Fogarty Manor, St. Germain Manor, Kennedy Manor and Burns Manor – will only be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas. There will be no smoking allowed at either of the Pawtucket Housing Authority’s family facilities, Galego Court and Prospect Heights.
Because he was already living in the building when the rules went into force this year, Daniels is allowed to keep smoking in his room until next August, according to the new rules. But just as with new residents, he is banned from smoking in the designated non-smoking areas and asked to either go out to the sidewalk or to a designated area behind the building to smoke.
Stephen Vadnais, executive director of the PHA, said Monday that he has “more important things to deal with in this world” than “obstinate people” like Daniels who “break the rules.”
“People break the rules all the time, but you pick your battles,” he said. “We have much more serious offenses going on right now.”
If Daniels wants to “isolate” and put his behavior “on display,” said Vadnais, “that speaks volumes” as to the person he is.
“I’m not picking a fight with Jerry Daniels,” he said. “You walk away from the schoolyard bully.”
If residents like Daniels don’t comply with the rules by next year, said Vadnais, PHA officials will need to look at “tougher enforcement,” but they are really hoping that residents like Daniels agree to comply on their own accord. Like speeders who disregard road signs, someone will probably always be breaking the rules here, he said.
The non-smoking policy in public housing that the PHA is implementing was issued back in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees local housing authorities.
The policy “strongly encourages public housing authorities to implement non-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units.”
Daniels, 66, moved to Fogarty Manor in 2010. Back then he could smoke anywhere he liked except the main common areas in the building, he said.
Very few housing authorities across the country have smoking bans in place, he said, and the majority are in “blue states,” said Daniels.
The rules at Fogarty, as they are in other places, are based on plenty of “false” information, said Daniels. There is no way that the “self-contained” units here would allow smoke under the doors, through walls, or through the vent system, as suggested by officials, he said.
“I don’t smell bacon and I don’t smell coffee from other apartments,” said Daniels.
The ban that is gradually being implemented in Pawtucket Public Housing facilities is pitting “neighbor against neighbor,” said Daniels, leading some residents to write down names of those who are breaking the rules.
Daniels has been smoking for 54 years, since he was 12, and says the cigarettes he smokes are a “legal product” that should not be taken away. If smokers are allowed to be targeted like they are now, he said, who’s next? Will someone next year be coming along to take away fries and doughnuts?
Daniels has no desire to quit smoking after doing it for so long, but he understands what he is doing to his body.
“It’s a filthy, rotten, dirty, expensive, unattractive habit,” he said. “But it’s an addiction nonetheless.”
11/5/2013
By ETHAN SHOREY, Valley Breeze Staff Writer
PAWTUCKET – A resident of a downtown subsidized housing facility says he plans to keep smoking despite a new smoking ban, and will file a legal challenge if anyone tries to punish him for it.
Jerry Daniels, a resident of Fogarty Manor on Roosevelt Avenue, told The Breeze that new anti-smoking policies being implemented in the city are “unenforceable,” “unnecessary,” and are “only causing problems.”
Already there are no smoking signs out in front of Fogarty Manor, said Daniels, and residents are being asked to walk at least 50 feet away from the facility to smoke. But that’s not stopping him from continuing to smoke even in areas where signs are placed prominently.
“This is my act of civil disobedience,” said Daniels. “I will smoke in my apartment and I will smoke outside.”
Daniels said he is just waiting “to be violated” by someone from the PHA before he proceeds with a lawsuit against the organization. Already he has been approached twice by security and asked to stop smoking, said Daniels, but he refused and was then left alone.
Officials from the Pawtucket Housing Authority will find it is “impossible” to enforce the smoking ban when it goes into full effect next August, says Daniels, and he and others plan to keep smoking even once it’s in place.
“There’s no way to enforce a smoking ban without violating our rights,” he said. “This smoking ban did not start from the ground up and is not an answer to people’s concerns that this place be smoke-free. It came from bureaucrats.”
If the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development had made a blanket rule across the country against smoke, he would have “no problem with it,” said Daniels, but instead they left it up to local housing authorities, which are dependent on the federal organization for funding.
As of Aug. 1, 2014, all residents of four Pawtucket facilities that house elderly and disabled residents – Fogarty Manor, St. Germain Manor, Kennedy Manor and Burns Manor – will only be allowed to smoke in designated smoking areas. There will be no smoking allowed at either of the Pawtucket Housing Authority’s family facilities, Galego Court and Prospect Heights.
Because he was already living in the building when the rules went into force this year, Daniels is allowed to keep smoking in his room until next August, according to the new rules. But just as with new residents, he is banned from smoking in the designated non-smoking areas and asked to either go out to the sidewalk or to a designated area behind the building to smoke.
Stephen Vadnais, executive director of the PHA, said Monday that he has “more important things to deal with in this world” than “obstinate people” like Daniels who “break the rules.”
“People break the rules all the time, but you pick your battles,” he said. “We have much more serious offenses going on right now.”
If Daniels wants to “isolate” and put his behavior “on display,” said Vadnais, “that speaks volumes” as to the person he is.
“I’m not picking a fight with Jerry Daniels,” he said. “You walk away from the schoolyard bully.”
If residents like Daniels don’t comply with the rules by next year, said Vadnais, PHA officials will need to look at “tougher enforcement,” but they are really hoping that residents like Daniels agree to comply on their own accord. Like speeders who disregard road signs, someone will probably always be breaking the rules here, he said.
The non-smoking policy in public housing that the PHA is implementing was issued back in 2009 by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which oversees local housing authorities.
The policy “strongly encourages public housing authorities to implement non-smoking policies in some or all of their public housing units.”
Daniels, 66, moved to Fogarty Manor in 2010. Back then he could smoke anywhere he liked except the main common areas in the building, he said.
Very few housing authorities across the country have smoking bans in place, he said, and the majority are in “blue states,” said Daniels.
The rules at Fogarty, as they are in other places, are based on plenty of “false” information, said Daniels. There is no way that the “self-contained” units here would allow smoke under the doors, through walls, or through the vent system, as suggested by officials, he said.
“I don’t smell bacon and I don’t smell coffee from other apartments,” said Daniels.
The ban that is gradually being implemented in Pawtucket Public Housing facilities is pitting “neighbor against neighbor,” said Daniels, leading some residents to write down names of those who are breaking the rules.
Daniels has been smoking for 54 years, since he was 12, and says the cigarettes he smokes are a “legal product” that should not be taken away. If smokers are allowed to be targeted like they are now, he said, who’s next? Will someone next year be coming along to take away fries and doughnuts?
Daniels has no desire to quit smoking after doing it for so long, but he understands what he is doing to his body.
“It’s a filthy, rotten, dirty, expensive, unattractive habit,” he said. “But it’s an addiction nonetheless.”
RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF TAXATION
http://www.tax.state.ri.us/
RHODE ISLAND DIVISION OF TAXATION
NOTICE RE: MAIL ORDER/INTERNET PURCHASES OF CIGARETTES
Download form T-205C to pay cigarette and sales taxes due on purchases
http://www.tax.ri.gov/info/cigfaq.htm
NOTICE RE: MAIL ORDER/INTERNET PURCHASES OF CIGARETTES
Download form T-205C to pay cigarette and sales taxes due on purchases
http://www.tax.ri.gov/info/cigfaq.htm
RI Tax Amnesty Information
The Rhode Island Division of Taxation will be offering a Tax Amnesty Program beginning on July 15, 2006 and ending on September 30, 2006.
http://www.tax.ri.gov/amnesty/amnesty.htm
The Rhode Island Division of Taxation will be offering a Tax Amnesty Program beginning on July 15, 2006 and ending on September 30, 2006.
http://www.tax.ri.gov/amnesty/amnesty.htm
Laura Martin ’06: Smoking as scapegoat
Anti-smoking legislation ignores larger health threats and sources of pollution
Anti-smoking legislation ignores larger health threats and sources of pollution
Laura Martin
3/17/06
3/17/06
On March 1, 2005, Rhode Island became the seventh state to implement a statewide smoking ban, prohibiting smoking in virtually every work place in the state. The ban is enforced under the 2005 Public Health and Workplace Safety Act and applies to all businesses except the state’s two gambling parlors, Newport Grand and Lincoln Park. Businesses must be entirely non-smoking, and the Department of Health recommends that patrons who wish to smoke should stand 50 feet away from the doorframe. The fine for smoking violations is $250 for the first offence, $500 for the second and $1000 for each subsequent violation. The business owner is solely accountable for paying the fine. The smoking ban raises serious questions about how we prioritize public health decisions and who is responsible for environmental pollution.
It is quite obvious, of course, that smoking and second hand smoke are linked to heightened cancer and asthma risks. An amazingly successful public health campaign has lead to a heightened awareness of the risks associated with smoking. Beginning with Mississippi in 1994, states starting filing individual lawsuits with the top four tobacco companies on the premise that they should be able to recover the costs of treating illness caused by tobacco use. This led to the Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, in which R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson, Lorillard and Philip Morris agreed to pay the states $206 billion. The settlement was a critical turning point for the anti-tobacco movement. However, while smoking has become “demonized,” officials and academics have failed to discuss the public health effects of car exhaust and industrial pollution. Other environmental externalities, such as exhaust pollution, pose an enormous health threat, one which seems more urgent and widespread than second-hand smoke.
Car exhaust contains carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, suspended particles less than 10 microns in size, benzene, formaldehyde and polycyclic hydrocarbons, among other compounds. The laundry list of toxic airborne compounds released by car use and by industrial practices is nothing short of terrifying.
If these airborne pollutants are so noxious as well, then why has the government pursued the banning of cigarette smoke so persistently at the expense of regulating greater health risks? There are three simple answers. The first is that enforcement of smoking bans is much easier to implement than trying to cap industry emissions. Secondly, smoking is propagated by one overarching industry – tobacco companies – while industrial and traffic pollution is caused by a whole array of industries. Finally, it is much easier to prove the relationship between cancer and smoking in an epidemiological study than it is to prove the relationship between cancer and pollution, which comes from an unquantifiable number of sources.
If these airborne pollutants are so noxious as well, then why has the government pursued the banning of cigarette smoke so persistently at the expense of regulating greater health risks? There are three simple answers. The first is that enforcement of smoking bans is much easier to implement than trying to cap industry emissions. Secondly, smoking is propagated by one overarching industry – tobacco companies – while industrial and traffic pollution is caused by a whole array of industries. Finally, it is much easier to prove the relationship between cancer and smoking in an epidemiological study than it is to prove the relationship between cancer and pollution, which comes from an unquantifiable number of sources.
The difference between banning cigarette smoking and decreasing emissions is that it’s easier to blame a huge, visible industry than it is to blame ourselves. In reality, each and every person contributes to local air pollution through driving and day-to-day energy consumption. We affect every other citizen with our consumption, but the environment is an externality in our economic system for which no one group or individual is solely responsible. Many towns have a flat fee for household trash removal, but there is obviously no fee on the individual for “environmental impact.”
The fact that citizens are often left without a choice but to contribute to local air pollution is the greatest obstacle standing in the way of reducing noxious emissions. People must drive in order to get to their workplaces, and public transportation does not provide a viable alternative for the majority of suburban populations. Citizens in most towns are also not held accountable for the amount of trash they generate. By charging per-pound for trash removal, legislation could have a profound impact on the amount of waste generated. Analogous policies for fuel consumption might help reduce air pollution.
The tobacco industry and smokers do not deserve to be demonized for threatening our public health. In 1995, the Rhode Island Department of Health survey found that 62 percent of companies in the state were smoke-free, while another 23 percent had “highly-restrictive” smoking policies. In comparison to the deplorable number of superfunds in the state, smoking in public spaces seems like a lesser threat. Discussion must be extended to the carcinogenic and asthmatic effects of local air pollution. Just as states have sued big tobacco in order to account for money spent on treating sickness caused by smoking, states must further pursue lawsuits against other industries such as the automobile and transportation industries that also cause detriment to public health.
Laura Martin ’06 knows that exhaust fumes are the ultimate high.
Bill bans smoking in small clubs
Meanwhile, the Health Department has received 117 complaints about unlawful smoking.
April 29, 2005
BY SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
Journal State House Bureau
BY SCOTT MAYEROWITZ
Journal State House Bureau
PROVIDENCE — Legislation that expands the state’s smoking ban to small bars and private clubs previously exempt has landed on Governor Carcieri’s desk. He is “most likely” to sign it into law, according to his spokesman.
The House had passed legislation removing such exemptions for some holders of class C and D liquor licenses earlier this month. The Senate gave its approval yesterday, sending the identical bills by Sen. V. Susan Sosnowski, D-South Kingstown, and Rep. Jan P. Malik, D-Warren, to Carcieri.
The bills follow a decision by Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Fortunato Jr. last month that the exemptions were unconstitutional. He said there was no rational reason for lawmakers to prohibit smoking in some bars while exempting a group of almost identical bars from the ban.
Fortunato issued a temporary restraining order essentially outlawing smoking in there for the time being. This law would codify that decision.
Meanwhile, a steady flow of complaints have poured into the Department of Health about violations to the existing ban. As of Wednesday, 117 complaints had been received — both informal phone calls and formal signed complaints.
Newport Grand, Lincoln Park, the West Valley Inn, the state’s public transit authority, Miriam Hospital and one of the state courthouses are among the facilities formally accused of violating the new law.
The Providence Journal filed a public records request seeking copies of all complaints; informal and formal. The department denied the request for copies of the complaints and information on the complainants.
However, under state law, any time the department receives a formal complaint it must send a letter to the business informing it of the complaint. The department did provide The Journal with copies of those letters. Those letters only account for a small percentage of the 117 complaints.
While not saying what those other complaints are, the department did say they mostly involved patrons and employees smoking, as well as smoke drifting into the buildings from smokers outside.
Once two formal complaints are received, the department is required by law to forward the complaints — no matter what — to the local town or city solicitor for prosecution.
Lincoln Park and the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority are so far the only entities to have received two formal complaints and are likely to be the first two cases prosecuted under the law, which took effect on March 1.
The first complaint against RIPTA alleges that a bus driver was smoking on the bus. The second complaint says that a bus smelled of cigarette smoke and the complainant thought it was the bus driver but was not sure, according to William P. Dundulis Jr., one of the people enforcing the law at the Health Department. The RIPTA complaints are being forwarded to Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch.
Karen Mensel, director of communications for RIPTA, said that smoking on buses has been prohibited long before the ban took effect and that RIPTA is investigating.
“We don’t have any tolerance for it,” she said, noting that if the allegations are found true, the drivers will be disciplined.
Smoking is allowed in parts of Lincoln Park and Newport Grand. There are, however, several restrictions: the buildings must have separate ventilation systems for the smoking and nonsmoking sections and all restaurants must be nonsmoking.
Complaints against Lincoln Park say that it has food areas in smoking sections and that several areas did not have separate ventilation systems. The complaints have been forwarded to the Lincoln town solicitor.
Track spokesman Michael F. Trainor said smoking and nonsmoking systems throughout the building have separate and distinct ventilation systems. Since being contacted by the Health Department, Lincoln Park has built a wall around its first-floor food court and is “waiting some further direction” from the department about its second-floor food stand, he said.
Trainor said the track is in “an absolute mode of cooperation” with the department.
One formal complaint has also been filed against Newport Grand regarding a snack bar in a smoking area.
While restaurants are not allowed in the smoking areas, bars in existence prior to March 1 are. Newport Grand CEO Diane Hurley is calling the stand which serves pretzels, pizza, ice cream and hot dogs a bar which also happens to have a few snacks and therefore should be exempt. The smoking ban defines bars, Hurley said, as places where “the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of” beverages.
Fines are $250 for the first violation, $500 for the second and $1,000 for each subsequent violation. Each day of a violation counts as a separate offense. The state and prosecuting agency split the fines.
http://www.projo.com/
http://www.projo.com/
Hearing on smoking ban delayed pending legislation
April 13, 2005
By Joe Baker/Daily News staff
By Joe Baker/Daily News staff
NEWPORT – When Superior Court Judge Stephen J. Fortunato ended the exemption to the state’s smoking ban for small bars on March 31, it was for 10 days. Fortunato scheduled an April 11 hearing to determine whether a temporary restraining order he approved would become permanent.
But it seems more and more likely that Fortunato will not have to make that decision; the General Assembly will make it instead.
On Monday, Fortunato postponed the scheduled hearing until May 2 at the request of both sides of the smoking ban lawsuit. According to the judge’s order, the restraining order will stay in place until then.
Last week, the House of Representatives passed legislation ending the exemption for establishments with Class C and D liquor licenses that employ fewer than 10 people. The Senate Health and Human Services Committee is expected to consider the legislation Wednesday. According to a Senate spokesman, that bill is on the fast track to passage.
“I imagine (the bill) will go pretty quickly,” Senate spokesman Greg Pare said Monday.
If the Senate passes the bill, Gov. Donald L. Carcieri is poised to sign it into law.
“Governor Carcieri would likely sign the legislation,” Carcieri spokesman Jeff Neal said Monday. “But we would need to see the final version.”
Last year, the General Assembly passed legislation banning smoking in nearly every workplace in the state. Carcieri signed it into law. The law permanently exempts the state’s two gambling parlors, Newport Grand and Lincoln Park. It also exempted until October 2006 bars with Class C and D liquor licenses that employ less than 10 people.
The recently formed Neighborhood Pub Association, a coalition of larger bars not subject to the exemption, filed suit, claiming the smaller bars enjoyed an unfair competitive advantage over them because smoking was allowed. In the suit, association members claimed they had been losing as much as 35 percent of their business since the ban went into effect on March 1.
After a hearing March 31, Fortunato ruled that the exemption for small bars was unconstitutional. Using the number of workers as a dividing line, he said, was arbitrary.
“There is nothing magical about eight (employees) or 12 (employees),” Fortunato said. “It has nothing whatsoever with carcinogens in the air and exposure of employees and patrons in those establishments.”
http://www.newportdailynews.com/
http://www.newportdailynews.com/
Smoking in private clubs could be banned
April 12, 2005
Later this morning a judge could issue an order to permanently ban smoking in private clubs and small bars. These establishments were previously exempt under the state’s new smoking ban.
Later this morning a judge could issue an order to permanently ban smoking in private clubs and small bars. These establishments were previously exempt under the state’s new smoking ban.
There is a lot of controversy, since the smoking ban doesn’t apply to the Newport Grande or Lincoln Park. One local private club owner directly affected by the judge’s decision says private clubs should be exempt.
Katrin Busche is furious about a superior court judge’s ruling that has kept her private club, Buschewacker’s in Newport; smoke free for the last ten days. She says business at her club, which is only open to members and their guests, has been hurting since the temporary ban on smoking went into effect.
Katrin Busche:
“Last night was dead. Horrible, and it has to do with smoking issues.”
An ad that was placed in the Newport Daily News recruiting new members, promotes the private club’s smoke-friendly environment. But the ad rubbed many legislators the wrong way, some calling the act “repulsive”. Other public pub and restaurant owners are saying clubs like hers are the reason their businesses are losing money.
Katrin Busche:
“In order to get members in here, you have to recruit somehow. The smoking permitted. It is a draw to the club. They want to smoke a cigar. They work hard all week… want to drink and have a cigarette.”
Busche, like others who are opposed to the ban, says if the state is going to rule the exemptions unconstitutional, there should be no exceptions to that rule- such as with Lincoln Park and Newport Grand. This owner says she’ll fight to put back up the smoking permitted sign at her establishment…
Katrin Busche:
“It’s private. It’s like the privacy of my home. If you don’t want to become a member, then don’t come in with a member, don’t be sponsored by a member, but it’s a private club.”
The house has already approved a bill to expand the current smoking to ban to private clubs and that legislation now goes to the senate for approval
House moves to extend smoking ban
April 7, 2005
PROVIDENCE (AP) — The House of Representatives has approved a bill extending the statewide smoking ban to small bars and private clubs, shortly after a court order temporarily suspended the exemption from the ban that they had enjoyed.
The Senate was expected to pass the legislation shortly after the House’s Tuesday action, and Gov. Don Carcieri appears likely to sign it into law, according to a statewide publication.
The smoking ban had carved out temporary exemptions for the 35 class C and 278 class D facilities until Oct. 1, 2006. The exemptions are on hold until later this month, when another hearing is scheduled in a lawsuit challenging them.
Passing the measure Tuesday, House lawmakers said they were unhappy with the way some of the exempt bars and clubs had been behaving.
Some private clubs have been taking out advertisements welcoming new members and promoting the fact that smoking was allowed in their buildings.
House Majority Leader Gordon Fox, D-Providence, said those clubs broke the spirit of the compromise contained in the legislation.
“The sins of the few will spoil it for the many,” he said.
Smoking is still allowed at the Lincoln Park and Newport Grand gambling facilities.
Cigar and smoking bars also remain exempt, but none have been licensed in the state.
http://www.zwire.com
http://www.zwire.com
