 Santa Monica residents to have a say on the future of an important property that could be developed if the airport closes. Opponents say Measure D is a scheme to keep the airport open indefinitely.
The City has placed the rival Measure LC on the ballot (“Santa Monica Voters to Choose Between Competing Airport Ballot Measures,” July 24, 2014).
Lavin wrote in his decision, “There is … no legal basis to require the City attorney at this early stage of the initiative process to delay the initiative process while claims of [Measure D's] invalidity are determined.”
The judge also rejected Stein’s argument that the measure would actually require a majority of registered Santa Monica voters to approve closure for it to happen, rather than just a majority of those voting in an election in which the proposal were on the ballot. This has been a hotly contested issue (“Airport Rivals Debate Meaning of Voter Approval,” August 20, 2014).
In addition, Lavin rejected an accusation by Stein (also made by other anti-airport activists not associated with his faction) that signatures to get the measure on the ballot were collected through deceptive tactics.
“There is no evidence that the proposed circulated petition contained false statements intended to mislead voters and induce them to sign the petition,” Lavin wrote.
Stein said his defeat was mostly on “technical grounds,” and he hopes to get the decision reversed on appeal. He acknowledged the appeal would not be heard before Election Day. Attempting to secure an expedited hearing is possible, but Stein said he would not do this.
The attorney also told The Lookout the second suit his group filed “will get more specific issues heard.”
Attorney and Measure D supporter David Shaby had a different take on the situation.
"Today’s decision is just the first step in restoring the voice of the voters," he said in a statement. "The next step will be passing Measure D, which gives voters the final voice on whether City Council development schemes for 227 acres of land will move forward or not."
Although Stein’s faction and other anti-airport activists, including members of the City Council, have a common goal of airport closure, or at least defeating Measure D, they are often not on the same page.
Stein has said at recent council meetings that City staff work in favor of aviation interests, which is an accusation not supported (at least openly) by those not in his faction. Also, his suits are not supported by other anti-airport activists. After the first suit was filed, the City countered with a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) motion to get it dismissed, which is what Lavin approved with his ruling.
In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, Deputy City Attorney Ivan Campbell called the suit “misguided and an unnecessary distraction" as well as “a needless waste of public resources and time."
Stein told The Lookout that Campbell’s comment was made because his office “is on the side of AOPA.”
“AOPA is a special interest that will spend half a million dollars trying to put through a deceptive petition,” said Stein, who added that several methods should be used to defeat Measure D, including legal action.
Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development Decisions, the committee formed to support Measure D, had raised more than $260,000 as of last month ("Airport Supporters Raise Over $260,000 for Ballot Battle," July 29, 2014). The leading opposition group called Committee for Local Control of Santa Monica Airport Land has not collected any reported money. The group hosted its first official event on Wednesday.
Stein said it is unlikely the opposition group will be able to defeat the proponents in the fundraising battle, making an election victory more difficult.
“I hope residents see through [Measure D], but I’ve seen enough elections where money wins,” Stein said. “So if you can beat them in court, that’s a good idea.”Abstract
Plain packaging of tobacco products: an EU success story
In March 2017, the European Union (EU) celebrated its 60th anniversary. The frenzied focus in recent times has been on crises, from economics to migration, terrorism and the UK leaving the EU. However, in contrast to the increase in Euroscepticism are the EU's successes, which should and must be celebrated. One of the major victories from a public health perspective is the harmonisation of tobacco control policy across the 28 EU member states (MSs) through the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) and the Tobacco Tax Directive, which, through the regulation of tobacco products, protect the health of the 511 million EU citizens.
Tobacco smoking is the main preventable cause of morbidity and mortality from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and coronary artery disease [1]. It causes >6 million deaths each year globally [2] and is responsible for 700 000 deaths every year in the EU [3]. In addition, the burden of tobacco use on society is enormous. In Europe, a report from the European Commission in 2012 suggested that tobacco-related diseases cost the economy EUR 544 billion in 2009, which is equivalent to ∼4.6% of the EU's gross domestic product [4]. Hence, the economic benefits of tobacco control are enormous.
The EU has made great progress in de-normalising tobacco use, encouraging smokers to quit, protecting nonsmokers from second-hand smoke and preventing young people from taking up smoking [5]. This is corroborated by the prevalence trends from 2006–2015 that show a decline in the proportion of smokers of six percentage points in the EU as a whole [6]. However, a lot remains to be done. The number of smokers in the EU continues to be of concern, with 26% of the overall population and 25% of young people aged 15–24 years being current smokers [7].
Policies on cigarette packaging and labelling are constantly gaining momentum in the EU and worldwide, and are proven tobacco control tools. Since May 20, 2016, the EU TPD has required that all EU MSs include pictorial warnings on cigarette packs that cover 65% of the external front and back surface of the unit packet, and any outside packaging of cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco [8]. The increased size of the pictorial warnings is a significant step forward in tobacco control; however, plain packaging represents one step ahead in reducing the tobacco industry's marketing outreach to our youth.
Although many factors influence tobacco experimentation and use, a number of studies have shown that tobacco industry advertising and promotion stand out as a prominent factor in encouraging tobacco use [9]. Cigarette packaging, including the pack format (size, shape and opening), colours and logos, impact consumer perception of health risks of smoking [10–15]. The whole purpose of plain packaging is to thwart this industry tactic.
Plain packaging strips cigarette packs of all branding elements, including colours and logos, and mandates that all cigarette packaging be a standardised colour and display only a brand name in a required font style and format. Plain packs are not white or blue but an indifferent hue of brown. In other words, plain packaging removes the mask of marketing from the packet and reveals the true nature of tobacco: a product that kills up to half of its users [2].
In light of the above, the European Respiratory Society (ERS), together with the European Network for Smoking and Tobacco Prevention (ENSP), jointly developed a position paper to reaffirm the scientific evidence behind plain packaging and encourage countries to implement the measure. The document was presented at a high-level event in the European Parliament in Brussels, Belgium, to various stakeholders such as policy makers, nongovernmental organisations, health professionals and academics, as part of World No Tobacco Day 2016. This position paper can be summarised in four key points that put forward the arguments in favour of plain packaging: 1) plain packaging works; 2) plain packaging is cost-effective; 3) plain packaging is legal; and 4) plain packing is happening.
Plain packaging works
Scientific evidence has shown that the implementation of plain packaging reduces smoking prevalence [16], increases thoughts about quitting and calls to quit lines [17, 18], reduces brand awareness, attractiveness and appeal of the package [19–21], and increases the salience and effectiveness of health warnings among adolescents [22]. Moreover, despite claims of the opposite, the implementation of plain packaging does not impact illicit trade or product retrieval time [23–25].
To strengthen the current evidence behind plain packaging, it is important that all EU MSs evaluate the impact of the implementation of the measure in their region and for their national population. Regional evidence is warranted to expand further the evidence base that supports the implementation of plain packaging.
Plain packaging is cost-effective
EU MSs should require plain packaging because the measure is a cost-effective public health policy for governments. Indeed, the state determines the regulation but costs related to tobacco packaging implementation are borne by the tobacco industry [26].
Plain packaging is legal
The political setting to implement plain packs is provided by international agreements such as the World Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), through the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) and by European legislation through the EU TPD. The WHO FCTC states that “Parties should consider adopting plain packaging requirements to eliminate the effects of advertising or promotion on plain packaging” [27]. In the Doha declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, WTO members agreed that “the TRIPS agreement does not and should not prevent member states from taking measures to protect public health” [28].
The TPD does not require EU MSs to implement plain packaging but it specifies in Article 24.2 that member states are permitted to implement the measure. This was confirmed by a ruling from the European Court of Justice on May 4