Clear The Air News Tobacco Blog Rotating Header Image

October 9th, 2008:

Bars Win In Smoking-Ban Case

Peter Brieger – Oct 09, 2008

The director of health used a flawed process to decide which places of entertainment should be excluded from a wide-ranging smoking ban, the Court of First Instance ruled yesterday.

The decision was a win for three bars, which fought the prohibition, and threw into question how the health watchdog might fight other legal challenges to the ban, introduced two years ago but with exemptions for some premises until June 30 next year.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Anselmo Reyes said health inspectors must do more than just look at, for example, lunchtime sales to determine whether or not to allow smoking at an establishment.

The Bull and Bear pub in Wan Chai, Sticky Fingers in Tsim Sha Tsui and Biztro in Central had argued that alcohol accounted for the vast majority of their sales even though customers could order full meals.

The judicial review centred on whether the three – booted off a list of bars exempted from the smoking ban – sold mainly food or alcohol.

Smoking is not allowed at restaurants that rely on food sales for most of their revenue.

Health Department inspectors concluded that the three bars should be removed from the list on the basis of checks on their lunchtime trade.

Mr Justice Reyes wrote: “As a matter of logic, that an establishment serves certain foods at certain hours will not necessarily mean that it is `primarily’ engaged in the supply of meals. One has to look at what the establishment does as a whole.”

The judge sent the case back to the appeal board – which had upheld the Health Department’s ruling – for “reconsideration”.

“We will study the judgment of the court in detail in consultation with the Department of Justice before we decide on the way ahead,” a Health Department spokeswoman said.

The ratio of food to liquor sales might help determine what sort of business an establishment ran, but it was not the only factor to consider, Mr Justice Reyes wrote.

He also criticised the appeal board for having made “inconsistent decisions” in the past and noted that board members relied too much on what kind of food places served.

“This vindicates what our position has been throughout the process,” said Chris Dundon, a solicitor who represented Biztro and the Bull and Bear. “The approach of the Director [of Health] was misconceived all the way along.”

Yesterday’s ruling could open the door for other establishments to challenge their removal from the department’s list of exempted establishments, Mr Dundon said.

“As far as I’m aware, [health authorities] haven’t changed their approach,” he said. “Now that there’s actually been a judge pronouncing on this, it shows the route map by which bars can look at their operations and decide if they fit within the ordinance.”

The decision also helped create a “level playing field” for establishments that suffered under the dual system, said Ian Thomson, chief executive of the Bull and Bear’s parent company.

It had suffered an appreciable drop in sales when it had to ban smoking for a month until it won the right to fight the decision in court, he said.

“We’re pleased because it means we’re back to business as usual and on a level playing field with other bars,” he said.

Hong Kong Up In Smoke?

Star: World briefs – Oct 9, 2008

Hong Kong – Hong Kong’s city-wide anti-smoking drive faces a serious setback after three bars won a court ruling that may allow them to let smokers back in. The bars argued that health inspectors were wrong to ban them from allowing smokers inside, as they make most of their money from food, not drink. Currently, only bars that make most of their money from drink sales may admit smokers.

Hong Kong bars win court battle to allow smokers

The Sun Daily

Hong Kong (Oct 9, 2008) : Hong Kong’s city-wide anti-smoking drive was facing a serious setback Thursday after three popular bars won a court ruling that may allow them to let smokers back indoors.

The bars successfully argued in the High Court that health inspectors were wrong to ban them from allowing smokers inside on the basis that they make most of their money from serving food not drink.

Currently, only bars that make most of their money from drink sales are allowed to admit smokers while those that make most of their money from serving food are not.

At a hearing Wednesday, The Bull and Bear in Wan Chai, Sticky Fingers in Tsim Sha Tsui and Biztro in Central all had the findings of the health inspectors overturned on the basis that they visited at lunchtime only.

Scores more bars which have been forced to evict smokers on the basis that their main business is food may now be able to challenge the health inspectors’ findings.

The High Court ordered a new hearing into the status of the three bars and whether they should or should not be allowed to let people smoke inside.

Smoking was banned in all Hong Kong restaurants and bars at the beginning of 2007 but nightclubs and bars making most of their revenue through drink sales were exempted until June 2009. — dpa

“Working To Shape What Society’s Expectations Of Us Should Be”: Philip Morris’ Societal Alignment Strategy

Published Online First: 9 October 2008. doi:10.1136/tc.2008.026476
Tobacco Control 2008;17:391-398
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

RESEARCH PAPERS

J S Yang1, R E Malone2

1 Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
2 Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA

Correspondence to:
R E Malone, Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street Suite 455, San Francisco, California, USA 94118; ruth.malone@ucsf.edu

Background: A key element of Philip Morris’s (PM’s) corporate social responsibility initiatives is “societal alignment”, defined as “strategies and programs to meet society’s expectations of a responsible tobacco company”. This study explored the genesis and implementation of Philip Morris’ (PM) societal alignment efforts.

Methods: The study retrieved and analysed approximately 375 previously undisclosed PM documents now available electronically. Using an iterative process, the study categorised themes and prepared a case analysis.

Results: Beginning in 1999, PM sought to become “societally aligned” by identifying expectations of a responsible tobacco company through public opinion research and developing and publicising programs to meet those expectations. Societal alignment was undertaken within the US and globally to ensure an environment favourable to PM’s business objectives. Despite PM’s claims to be “changing”, however, societal alignment in practice was highly selective. PM responded to public “expectations” largely by retooling existing positions and programs, while entirely ignoring other expectations that might have interfered with its business goals. It also appears that convincing employees of the value and authenticity of societal alignment was difficult.

Conclusions: As implementation of the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control proceeds, tobacco control advocates should closely monitor development of such “alignment” initiatives and expose the motivations and contradictions they reveal.