August 2013 - CigarettesReviews.com | CigarettesReviews.com

Monthly Archives: August 2013

Mother’s fear of bright tobacco packs”

In a survey of more than 2,000 women for Cancer Research UK, found 8 of the 10 thought bright packaging was attractive to young people while 85% said that children should not be exposed to any tobacco marketing in general. The Government has established plans to introduce plain packaging on hold, saying he wanted to gather more evidence first. A decision has been delayed so more time can be spent on the study of how such a scheme has worked in Australia.

19may-smoking_2562573bHealth Minister Anna Soubry said in July that she “never give in to pressure.” Labour accused the Government of “caving in to big business.” Under the plans, all tobacco packages would be the same color and would carry prominent, graphic warnings about the dangers of smoking.

The examination of the mother and grandmother of children less than 18 years found 92% would be worried about their children when they are addicted to smoking under age.

Cancer Research UK runs a campaign to remove all the “stylish and attractive” branding from the packaging and increase the number of picture warnings about the health effects of smoking. More than 200,000 children start smoking every year, with more girls smoke regularly than boys, figures show.

Alison Cox, Cancer Research UK’s director of tobacco control, said: “Smoking causes more than 8 out of 10 cases of lung cancer, and more than 100,000 tobacco-related deaths each year. We also know that starting smoking at a young age greatly increases the risk of lung cancer, so most mothers and grandmothers believed that no child shall be subjected to exposure to advertising of tobacco products.

“We are urging the Government to introduce a simple, standardized packaging of tobacco, which, as well as being a popular movement, would show that the government cares more about the health of future generations than the profits the tobacco industry. We would like to see the government to protect children from the temptation of sophisticated marketing of tobacco industry and introduce a simple, standardized packaging as a way to reduce the number of young people who start smoking. “

Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ lobby group Forest, said: “There is no credible evidence that children start smoking because of the cigarette packaging. Teenagers are influenced primarily by their peers and family members. The introduction of plain packaging can be the source of the black market and it would have been much worse for children because the gangs do not care who they sell to.

“The government has rightly decided to wait until there is no conclusive evidence that supports plain packaging. To his credit, he also took into account the views of hundreds of thousands of people who responded to the public consultation on standardized packaging. Vast majority was against the policy, and not without reason. “

Martin Dockrell, director of policy and research at Action on Smoking and Health, said: “Mothers and grandmothers clearly want to protect children from tobacco industry: Since the advertising ban on smoking among children doubled removal promotional items from tobacco packaging that will help finish the job and further reduce take-up of smoking by children. “

Tricks of the Trade: High-Tech Cigarettes

Are electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) subject to the same policies banning smoking in offices, as regular cigarettes? Federal agencies (including the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Air Force) have banned the use of these products on the basis of the report of the chief physician in 2010, which are classified e-cigarettes as “tobacco products”. Does this mean we need to revise the tobacco-free policy in the workplace, to include e-cigarettes as a form of tobacco?

E-cigarettesA new technology will always cause us to rethink how we do things, and it often involves testing our “beliefs and traditions.” New technology spurs us to remove the obstacles that prevented us from doing something better or less bad.

One new technology enterprise managers can be found on the impact of their objects procedure rather are electronic cigarettes. Is there a smoking when someone uses one? Or is it not to smoke? That is the question!

An Electronic cigarette is a device created to be used as a regular cigarette. Instead of using an open flame or burning glow, which produces smoke, this item uses batteries to heat liquid nicotine into vapor, it referred to vamping. Users simply inhale and exhale nicotine vapor (which can be purchased at different levels, if someone wants to rid themselves of smoking / vaping). I’m told that smokers feel much the same way as smoking, but without the horrible smell, mess, chemicals and tar.

Here’s the problem for FMS. Vaping looks as smoking as we allow this without smokers feeling slighted? This is a very visually confusing. So let’s look at both sides of the issue.

Regular cigarettes: The problem with smoking indoors has two aspects:

1) It provides non-smokers from passive smoking, without their consent.

2) This is a fire hazard.

These only heat up while inhaling, the exhaled vapor has a pleasant odor, and presumably no secondhand nicotine enters the air.

So, there are two other problems:

1) Many of us are odorless free policy, and if you do not, you will. This is where electronic wickless and candles are scented or unscented that are prohibited.

2) There are no official studies that prove building occupants are not exposed to passive nicotine. If a product is labeled as a fragrance, the manufacture is not required to disclose ingredients on the Material Safety Data Sheet. The ingredients are considered to be property, confidential, etc. This prevents the companies from determining of the FMS that passengers involuntarily exposed.

I have not had to deal with this on my campus yet, but if you have and have a tip to share, please send it in the comments section below.

Government tax on tobacco plants

Brits caught his snuff agriculture were warned that they could face a hefty fine if they do not pay tax on their hiding place.

images (1)In recent years, some smokers have taken to buying tobacco seeds from companies such as Plantation House Tobacco Company and the seeds before planting them in their gardens.

Currently, a 20-pack of cigarettes costs between £ 7 and £ 8 and 25gram pack of rolling tobacco is sold for around £ 8.

A standard size allocation of 500 plants is enough to get up to 54 kg of tobacco – which will cost more than £ 8,000 in the shops.

But smokers with green fingers can face the long arm of the law if they do not tell the taxman about your stocks – even if it is intended for personal use only.

Last night a representative of HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) said: “Anyone growing tobacco at home to smoke should ensure that they pay the tax legally due, otherwise they could face a fine or have tobacco seized.”

HMRC told us a private person must pay a fee for any tobacco products they have produced, even if they are growers for their own consumption.

Campaigners have hit back at the crackdown.

Matthew Sinclair of the TaxPayers’ Alliance said: “It’s ridiculous that Britain’s complex tax code means you could end up being charged just for growing plants in your back yard.

“The taxman is determined to get every penny he can from people who just want to enjoy the smoke.

“High taxes on tobacco have not only hit ordinary people hardest, they also heat the black market time for a rethink.”

Angela Harbutt, the pro-smoking lobby group Forest, said: “I understand that HMRC should have a rule on this, but I seriously hope they do not waste their valuable resources chasing that grow something in their garden that clearly small scale.

“It strikes me as a bit funny.”

Grow-your’s-own Company shows no signs of slowing up.

Internet based-Plantation House says that one tobacco plant can produce millions of seeds, although it is illegal to sell or give it away.

The company’s coffinails.com website states the seeds of tobacco have increased as a result of the feeling that they have been “driven underground and banned in public places of anti-smoking lobbyists.”

He adds: “The pricing structure in the world wide doesn’t reflect the true cost of tobacco, more than a means of increasing taxes.”

Australian law challenged under trade agreements

In one, Philip Morris Asia Australia accused of violating the 1993 bilateral trade agreement between Hong Kong and Australia. Such agreements, known as investor-state contracts allow foreign investors to bring themselves to arbitration for damages against a country.

images (1)The case is pending arbitration of the UN Commission on International Trade Law.

In the other, Ukraine, Honduras and the Dominican Republic at the beginning of this year have brought their problems facing the World Trade Organization.

The complaint in March in Ukraine was a striking paradox. His Department of Commerce filed a challenge within hours of the President of Ukraine’s president signing a ban on tobacco advertising, and its parliament voting to ban smoking in public places – revolutionary approaches in chain smoking Eastern Europe. Trade officials have accepted; in spite of the actions of Ukraine do not have tobacco exports to Australia, and therefore no obvious interest in its anti-smoking policies.

“We are pleased to support countries that, like us, feel plain packaging could have a negative impact on trade,” said British American spokesman Jem Maidment.

It is not uncommon in trade disputes for corporations to give legal assistance to governments with mutual interested. In this case, however, the three countries appear to have little, if any, are directly interested in Australian politics Tobacco Control.

While tobacco exports from Ukraine to Australia, there are no exports from Honduras and the Dominican Republic in the last three years, an average of $ 65,000 (U.S.) and $ 807,000, respectively, according to the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

In response to a request in April, Ukrainian journalists in the country, the country’s Ministry of Economic Development and Trade said it was a “policy of support for Ukrainian producers and protect their interests in the domestic and foreign markets.” In this case, the ministry said it had “received concerns” about the law of Australia from the Ukrainian Association of Tobacco Growers, consisting of the top multinational tobacco, and from the Union of wholesalers and manufacturers of alcohol and tobacco Association.

Constantine Krasovksy, formal tobacco control official in Ukraine’s Ministry of Health, told FairWarning country allowed them to be used. “Honduras, Dominican Republic and Ukraine have agreed to be a prostitute,” he said.

Honduran officials, with the April release of the press, the Act” Australia” contrary to its trade obligations. He noted that the tobacco industry “employs hundreds of thousands of people, directly or indirectly through the supply chain in Honduras.”

The Dominican Republic, a major exporter of cigars, also said the plain packaging “will have a significant impact on our economy.” In a written statement FairWarning, Katrina Naut, Director General for foreign trade with the country’s Ministry of Industry and Commerce, said that if other countries join Australia for the adoption of plain packaging, it will lead to a drop in the price of branded tobacco products and “an increase – rather than decrease -.

Men drink less when they pay more for cigarettes

Raising taxes on cigarettes, it turned out, the fall in tobacco consumption. No shock there, if something costs more, people tend to limit the purchase. But a study published on Friday that high taxes on cigarettes is also associated with a reduction in the consumption of alcohol, at least among men and young adult smokers.

getty_rr_photo_of_man_drinking_beer_and_smokingAccording to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 46 million Americans both smoke and drink. And previous studies have shown that “smokers drink more,” Ali Yurasek, a doctoral student of psychology at the University of Memphis, who has studied the link, told NBC News.

The new study – conducted by researchers from Yale, Stanford and the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, and published in the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research – compared to nearly 11,000 people in 31 countries, the increase in cigarette taxes between 2001 – 2002 and 2004-2005, with the same number of people from 15 states, where taxes have remained the same.

The use of recorded alcohol consumption between the two periods of time, both in the national epidemiological research on alcohol and related conditions, the researchers were able to track any differences.

“What our analysis shows is the relationship between the increase in cigarette taxes and lower alcohol consumption of the general population, those in male smokers, male hazardous drinkers, smokers and young adults in particular,” Sherry A. McKee, associate professor of Psychiatry at Yale University School of Medicine, and one of the study’s authors, said in an interview.

Male smokers drank about 15% less alcohol per session, and about seven binged less than once a year in the states with tax hikes on tobacco products, compared with male smokers who were not hit with higher taxes.

Young adult smokers in the 18-29 states that have raised taxes on cigarettes cut episodes of drunkenness in the year by nearly one quarter. Again, the effect was mainly males.

“This is pretty consistent with the concept of behavioral economics,” said Yurasek, who recently published a paper showing smokers are willing to pay more for alcohol than non-smokers.

This is because the cigarettes and booze go together like chips and downs. This is what economists call “complementary” as burgers and buns and coffee and sugar.

McKee said that this epidemiological study does not prove cause and effect, because it may not control for a number of other possible factors, such as people moving from one state to another between the time periods, and the fact that the study relies on self-reports of alcohol.

Nevertheless, the apparent effect makes sense, as the difference between men and women in the study.

First, the use of alcohol and nicotine together is “additive” effect on the brain, said Mackey.

Laboratory studies in animals have shown that exposure to a key part of the brain involved in reward and motivation for nicotine increases the response of dopamine neurons-emitting habits. In other words, the nicotine can make drinking seem more fruitful. Laboratory animals treated with nicotine will drink more booze.

When asked what her results may say about the present, “electronic cigarette” craze, McKee said that while the devices have not been studied specifically for interaction with alcohol, research has shown “that when nicotine is running and other forms of away from cigarettes or tobacco, we are seeing an increase in the consumption of alcohol.”

Electronic cigarettes at a glance

Electronic Cigarette: The battery-powered device made of plastic or metal heat liquid nicotine solution, creating steam that users inhale. Some models are disposable, and some are designed to be refilled with cartridges containing that enthusiasts called “smoke juice.” Some e-cigarettes are made to look like a real cigarette with a tiny light on the tip that glows like the real thing.

e-cigarettejpg-241b9e1be84c390fWhat is in e-cigs: The liquid ingredients used in most electronic cigarette nicotine include water, glycerol, propylene glycol and flavors. Propylene glycol is a viscous liquid is sometimes used as a coolant but also as a food ingredient.

Selling Points: Users say that electronic cigarettes address both addictive and behavioral aspects of smoking. Smokers to get their nicotine without the thousands of chemicals found in regular cigarettes. And they receive to form something like a cigarette, while the exhalation and puffing that looks like smoke without ash, smell and resin.

The worries: So far, there is not much scientific evidence that electronic cigarettes help smokers quit or less, or to say that they are safe. Some are concerned that the electronic cigarette marketing may tempt children to take habits.

Growing market: The industry soared from thousands of users in 2006 to several million worldwide, which has led to the emergence of more than 200 brands. Analysts estimate the retail and online sales of electronic cigarettes could be worth $ 2 billion by the end of the year.

Flavors: While some e-cigarette manufacturers limit the offerings to tobacco and menthol taste, others sell candy as flavors such as cherry and strawberry – which is prohibited for use in conventional cigarettes because of concern that the flavors are used to appeal to children.

What’s ahead: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said it plans to establish marketing and standards for electronic cigarettes in the near future as part of its control over the tobacco industry. This step may limit the marketing arm of the company is currently using and restrict sales to minors.

Tobacco tax and American drug policy

Among my colleagues in the open fields of health and drug abuse, I’m almost one in hatred of President Obama proposed a doubling of federal cigarette taxes. My reservations stem from the hard lessons of U.S. drug policy.

iAypG0ciTznsAs recently pointed out drug policy expert Dr. Peter Reuter, anti-tobacco supporters see the smoking rate as the only indicator of public policies success. When it comes down – as it almost always is in response to higher taxes – they are welcome without reservation. I passionately want more Americans to kick the habit of smoking. But I’m worried about how the extremely high taxes on tobacco expansion of the black market, which in turn can cause a draconian response of law enforcement.

In New York, legal, fully taxed pack of cigarettes costs $ 10-15, Chicago prices are only slightly lower. The working class and the poor are dependent smokers (ie, the majority of smokers) so face greater temptation to enter into the black market. Columbia University professor Shelley Cantrell documented that “$ 5 a person” – street vendor untaxed cigarette black market – is now common feature of life in low-income areas of New York City neighborhoods.

Extremely high taxes on cigarettes are widely evaded. Professor David Merriman of the University of Illinois at Chicago, organized team apparently did not squeamish researchers collect discarded cigarette packs from garbage cans and sidewalks in the 100 districts of Chicago neighborhoods. He found that 75%  had no tax stamp, which indicates that on the black market or gray market of origin.

On-the-board increase in federal tobacco taxes not only to expand the black markets high-tax areas, it would also help to eliminate widespread cigarette smuggling high-tax states to states where cigarette taxes are ridiculously low. Such smuggling is not determined by the cash-strapped college kids with a few boxes in their backpacks. Organized criminal groups, and even terrorist organizations, are major players in the lucrative trade.

The most common policy response to the exploding of illegal cigarette trade is familiar to those skilled in the illegal drug policy: Do away with law enforcement. Arrest sweeps and tough prison sentences are now proposed government policy in Canada, where an estimated 15% of all cigarette sales are illegal. Get a Tough proposals also in the process of discussion is U.S. cities such as New York and Philadelphia. Of course, the New York City police are capable of rounding hordes $ 5 men (most of whom are people of color, low-income) and sending them into already overcrowded prisons, but the experience of illicit drug policy shows that to be a lose-lose proposition.

The task of the federal tax policy on cigarettes therefore is to avoid feeding the black market high-tax states to reduce cross-state operations, smuggling of tobacco products, and to increase tobacco taxes in states where taxes have room to grow without creating black markets. Flat tax increase on tobacco products cannot serve all three goals, but more creative tax policy could.

If we imagine for the sake of argument, that the $ 1.50-$ 2.50 package was the original selected range to receive a federal tax generosity, which will give 28 states below this range an incentive to hike state taxes. Citizens in these countries are much less smoke, better health and a full recovery of the state budget for the costs of smoking. And from another state gang of smugglers of tobacco will have far less incentive to maintain a presence in the state.

High-tax states would reap little net income from that part of the tax, which they made more than $ 2.50 a package Because of the loss of federal tax credits. This will give them an incentive to stop further growth or even cut back. This can have the effect of reducing the frequency of abysmal price level smoking cessation, but the same state benefit in terms of reducing the black market. As for the state revenue received by the state in a lot more money from a lower tax that people actually pay higher than the tax that is evaded by 75% of the time.

In states at the top of the federal stimulus range where further increase in taxation could reduce smoking only on the cost of production of black markets returned federal taxes can be used as the state sees fit. This can and should include attempts to reduce smoking in other ways. In the states, the federal stimulus below the range, the state legislative raise taxes in order to receive federal dollars, thereby reducing the level of smoking their inhabitants, without creating a large black market. And in all states, a rough adjustment of prices across the country will collapse profit cross-state ring smuggling of tobacco products.