It was a typical photo of teenage mischief, posted on MySpace last fall, featuring four cheerleaders from California High School in San Ramon at a party. The event did not happen on campus or during class hours, but when the coach saw the picture, her reaction was swift: two-week suspensions from the squad.

The girls’ crime: smoking from a hookah — not any illegal drug either, but tobacco.

“The girls admitted to smoking tobacco,” said Eileen Mantz, the school’s athletic director. “This just holds them and their parents accountable.”

Ms. Mantz said the city had begun a new antismoking effort, and San Ramon is not alone. Plans are being advanced elsewhere in the area to up the ante against tobacco by punishing those even tangentially connected with smoking, like movie studios, and in some cases singling out those previously considered victims of cigarette companies.

To be on the California High cheerleading squad, the girls had signed a code of conduct that bans use or possession of “alcohol, controlled substances, steroids” and tobacco. Such contracts are common at schools, but enforcement based on an Internet photo revealed how intense the antismoking mood has become.

Caitlin Kawaguchi, a student reporter at Cal High, broke the story for the school paper, which then grabbed headlines on a national student journalism Web site. The fact that cheerleaders smoked, Ms. Kawaguchi said, was not a sign tobacco is hip on campus. “There’s really not a lot of pressure to smoke,” she said.

Still, two weeks without pompoms is a light sentence compared with what smokers in San Francisco may soon face.

To fight secondhand fumes, San Francisco is considering a ban on smoking outside within 15 feet of building entrances and places like A.T.M. lines and cafes.

In dense neighborhoods, plentiful in a city where buildings adjoin one another, smokers would be kicked to the curb, forced to stand near traffic. Business owners would be required to enforce the new rules and shoo away smokers outside their buildings.

Dr. Mitch Katz, director of the San Francisco Department of Public Health, disagreed that such a policy represented a shift toward punishing smokers, and said it was not a step toward making smoking itself illegal.

“I believe in the Christian doctrine of don’t hate the smoker, hate the smoke,” Dr. Katz said.

He admitted that issuing fines would be problematic, but estimated that 90 percent of smokers would comply with the law.

Supervisor Eric Mar, sponsor of the proposal, said it was clear that attention was shifting to smokers, though he considers it tough love. “That’s exactly what it is,” Mr. Mar said.

Brian Millett, a smoker visiting San Francisco from rural Arcata, said the city’s concern about what passers-by inhaled was specious. “I don’t think it’s any more pollution than is coming out of these cars,” Mr. Millett said.

Smoking has no greater enemy than Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco. The entrance to Dr. Glantz’s office memorializes the timeline of the campaign against one of the world’s deadliest — and preventable — killers.

Dr. Glantz led the way to hold tobacco companies accountable for profiting from smoking, and did the same with Hollywood, helping expose and end product-placement deals that promoted cigarette brands in movies. His current Smoke Free Movies campaign wants films that include smoking to receive R ratings, which might substantially hurt their box office receipts.

“That’s the whole idea,” Dr. Glantz said.

His campaign has also bought full-page ads in Variety and The Hollywood Report to try to undermine “Avatar” in its quest for Academy Awards because of smoking in the film. When asked if his crusade cost the movie a recent Producers Guild award, Dr. Glantz said, “I hope so.”

“You shouldn’t be promoting addiction and death to 7-year-olds.” he said. “The movies are the largest single reason kids start to smoke.”

But Dr. Glantz’s fiery demeanor changed when he was told about the cheerleaders’ punishment. Suddenly, he appeared skeptical. It reminded him, he said, of efforts to prevent minors from smoking by making it difficult for them to buy cigarettes.

“We’ve shown it didn’t work,” he said.

Not every fire, or desire, can be snuffed by laws.

By SCOTT JAMES, Nytimes
February 18, 2010

Physicians and other public health advocates fighting in the tobacco wars have claimed some major victories in recent months but also have seen reminders of the need to remain vigilant against the onslaught of a committed foe.

Soon after the June 22, 2009, enactment of a landmark tobacco regulation law, some members of Big Tobacco launched the first of an expected series of legal challenges in an attempt to weaken the flanks of the statute. Anticipating this tactic, public health champions stepped up to defend the law and the public it was designed to protect.

The outcome of the first big skirmish in the courts was decidedly in favor of the public’s well-being. A federal trial court in Kentucky ruled in November 2009 that tobacco firms could not use a First Amendment-rights argument to claim that the Food and Drug Administration’s new authority over the industry’s questionable marketing practices went too far. Instead, the court affirmed the argument that the massive threat posed by the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. made it clear that the government was well within its rights to take a strong stand on behalf of consumers everywhere.

The tobacco companies involved in the lawsuit claimed that better enforcement of laws already on the books before June 2009 would be sufficient. But the government has tried that time and time again, and typically, the tobacco industry showed its willingness and ability to slip out of the grasp of any regulation that came its way. All the while, smoking-related health conditions continued to worsen, more kids got hooked on nicotine, and more people died.

This time around, it won’t be so easy for the cigarette makers to escape their responsibilities.

A January ruling from the same Kentucky district court affirmed that the FDA was on solid ground in requiring larger warning labels on tobacco products and banning the sale of “light” products without prior federal approval. The decision validated some of the most significant elements of the landmark regulation statute and hobbled the ability of tobacco firms to continue misleading consumers.

Even though these were some big wins for public health, complacency is not an option for patient advocates.

The tobacco industry has such a strong economic interest in crippling the new statute that it likely will appeal any court decisions that don’t go its way. But physicians and the legal firepower at their disposal — including the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies — have an even stronger interest in protecting the law: the health and lives of their patients. Expect these advocates to continue to fight as long as it takes, even if that road eventually leads to the highest court in the land.

It should be noted that the outcomes have not gone entirely in favor of the public’s health. In the January ruling, the Kentucky district court declined to dismiss the First Amendment challenge to FDA restrictions against marketing cigarettes as safe products simply because the government is regulating them more tightly. The judges also sided with the industry on the issue of restricting color and graphics in tobacco advertising, which have been used to entice many young children to light up their first smokes and fall into addiction.

Still, there are reasons to be optimistic that public health advocates will prevail in protecting effective FDA regulation. As things stand, none of the challenges to the bill so far has targeted the heart of the statute: the affirmation that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco. Instead, the threats have been coming from the sides, on unrelated free-speech and marketing issues.

That said, a well-delivered blow to the flank is a well-established and highly effective maneuver. Recent events show that some members of Big Tobacco know this tactic well. Fortunately, so do advocates for the public’s health.
American Medical News.
Februar 15, 2010

The Food and Drug Administration is saying in letters to two tobacco companies that flavored, dissolvable tobacco products _ that the agency compares with candy and says contain a lot of nicotine _ could be particularly appealing to kids and young adults.

The FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products wrote to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., maker of Camel cigarettes, and the smaller Star Scientific Inc. on Monday voicing concern over smokeless products that are consumed like breath mints but made from finely milled tobacco.

“CTP is concerned that children and adolescents may find dissolvable tobacco products particularly appealing, given the brightly colored packaging, candy-like appearance and easily concealable size of many of these products,” Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the Center for Tobacco Products, told the companies.

Deyton said regulators are worried the products’ nicotine content and rapid dissolution could cause nicotine dependence and addiction and be especially dangerous to children and young adults.

He asked the two best known makers of dissolvable tobacco products to provide their research and marketing information on how people under age 26 perceive and use the products.

Exercising new power to regulate tobacco that the FDA was granted in June, Deyton also requested research on misuse of the products, including potential accidental nicotine poisoning.

Regulators also want a summary of user demographics, including at what age “tobacco-naive consumers” start using the products.

The products are available in few markets and account for a small share of the tobacco industry.

Star Scientific, based in Petersburg, Va., markets its Ariva and Stonewall tablets in wintergreen, coffee and tobacco flavors. The first versions appeared about nine years ago.

R.J. Reynolds, which is owned by Reynolds American Inc. in Winston-Salem, N.C., is test-marketing dissolvable tablets, strips and a toothpick shape under the names Camel Orbs, Camel Strips and Camel Sticks in mint and other flavors.

The Orbs last about 15 minutes, the strips dissolve in five minutes or less and the sticks, which are slightly bigger than toothpicks, last 15 to 20 minutes.

The FDA is seeking the information as its Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee prepares to study the issue later this year.

Reynolds spokesman David Howard said that company is reviewing the FDA’s request and plans to help regulators evaluate the products.

“Our products are made for, and marketed to, adult tobacco consumers,” Howard said. He said dissolvable items are sold on the same shelves as other tobacco products and carry the same warnings and age restrictions.

Star Scientific, which has been involved in a patent dispute over some of the technology behind its dissolvable products, disagrees with the FDA’s characterization of them and looks forward to speaking with regulators, spokeswoman Sara Troy Machir said.

“The challenge that we have faced in attempting to meet the needs of adult smokers … is to develop a product that is palatable to the customer while at the same time not making it attractive to the non-tobacco user,” she said

Machir said flavors are added to the products to make them taste less harsh.

Tobacco companies are focusing on cigarette alternatives _ such as cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco, as well as other forms of nicotine replacement _ for future sales growth as demand for cigarettes continue to decline.

An anti-littering campaign that nearly flickered out two years ago has been revived with a makeover that allows for better tracking of motorists who toss cigarettes out of their cars.

The Cigarette Litter Hotline also has expanded from San Diego County to Orange, Riverside and Imperial counties.

“Once established, this really is a model that can be rolled out regionally, statewide and even in other states,” said Ken David, a spokesman for the local chapter of the nonprofit Surfrider Foundation, which operates the program with volunteers.

The group took over the hotline in July 2008 after county officials discontinued it, said local Surfrider chairman Manase Mansur.

Cigarette butts are regarded as the most-littered item in the world and are found on beaches by the hundreds of thousands nationwide. During rainstorms like those that battered the region this week, they are swept by storm drains to the ocean, where they harm sea life. They also can cause fires if they are tossed into dry brush.

Surfrider announced its upgrades yesterday. The improvements allow the California Highway Patrol to more easily send warning letters to people who have been anonymously reported to a toll-free number. The system relies on residents spotting “litterbutts” and calling in a license plate number along with the time and place of the incident.

The new electronic reporting program developed by Surfrider replaces the time-consuming process of tracking calls with paper records and handing them to the CHP, which then issued the warnings.

“We’ll be able to have more accurate information and send out more letters than we were able to before,” said CHP officer Mary Bailey in San Diego.

CHP doesn’t issue citations to people who are reported on the hotline, but officers do hand out tickets if they see people flicking butts from cars or trucks. Penalties can include a fine up to $1,000 and eight hours of community service picking up litter. Tossed cigarettes that cause fires may lead to felony charges.

“We need the eyes of the public to identify smokers that are endangering public safety by tossing lit cigarettes from vehicles,” said Chief Gary Dominguez of CHP’s Southern California division.

The hotline started in 2004 as a cooperative effort between county health officials, the local chapter of the American Lung Association and others. It averaged about 1,100 calls a month for at least three years, in part because concerned motorists programmed the old phone number into their cell phones to make reporting easier.

“People are very passionate about this,” said Debra Kelley, a top official at the lung association office in San Diego. “I think it’s the whole concept of careless, irresponsible smokers … who think the world is their ashtray. It’s just an affront.”

The hot line closed in mid-2008. Surfrider adopted the program and quickly opened up a new line.

“Once it became apparent that there were no more government funds, our Surfrider executive committee said this is just too important of an issue and too important of a tool to let it drop,” Mansur said.

He said the county had been spending about $50,000 a year on the program but he expects Surfrider can run it for about half that cost using volunteers and the new reporting system.

The number of calls dwindled to about 700 recently while Surfrider slowed its advertising and upgraded the system. Mansur expects calls will increase now that the program is back in the public eye, and he’s looking at installing a voice transcription system that will speed processing.

Kelley thanked Surfrider for taking over the program. “We were one of the parents of the baby and we gave it up for adoption,” she said. “It’s in a happy home now.”

A move by legislators in the US state of Maine to require brain-cancer warnings on mobile phones is expected to trigger a worldwide response, the Australian industry has said.

A Democrat state representative, Andrea Boland, wants new mobile phones to carry health warnings like those on cigarettes and is pushing ahead with the legislation despite a lack of scientific consensus.

The Australian industry expects a wave of concern when the legislation is debated this month.

Ms Boland said she understood that radiation from mobile phones increased the risk of brain cancer, especially for those under 18, and her opinion was reinforced by a 2006 study by the Swedish National Institute for Working Life showing a correlation between brain tumours and heavy mobile phone use.

“The main thing is that the warning labels get on there, and when people go to purchase something they have a heads-up that they need to really think about it,” Ms Boland said.

“This is a big important industry, and it’s a small modification to assure people that they should handle them properly.”

Randal Markey, the manager of communications for the Australian Mobile Telecommunications Association, said it was understandable that people would have concerns about mobile phones because of their experience with health controversies such as tobacco and asbestos.

“We do not expect everyone to accept our assurances about mobile phone safety,” he said.

“Our industry relies on the expert opinion of international health agencies for an overall assessment of health and safety issues.

“There is no established evidence that radio frequency exposure within internationally accepted safety limits causes adverse health effects.”

The World Health Organisation’s Interphone study, a decade-long investigation into the health implications of mobile phone use, remains unpublished.

In 2005 WHO said studies had found “no convincing evidence of an increased cancer risk” from mobile phones or their towers.

Mr Markey said if people were concerned, there were practical steps that could reduce exposure including using a hands-free kit or loudspeaker, text messages and limiting the length or number of calls.

In Australia there are more than 22 million mobile phones.

In the 11 months until November, more than 8.35 million handsets were brought into Australia – down slightly on 2007’s record 9.3 million – and although some were slated for distribution around the Pacific, most were for sale here.

In July, Turkey banned smoking in public places, becoming just the 7th country throughout Europe to approve anti-smoking policy.
The legislation was highly opposed by both smokers and bar owners, and even led to one death, when a bar owner was killed after he had asked one of the customers to put out his cig.

However, Turkish authorities attempting to consolidate their regulatory authority over tobacco industry obliged local cigarette producers to place graphic and written health warnings on cigarette packs covering more than 60 percent of the area of packs. The ordinance has been expected to become valid on January 1, 2010. However, the local cigarette makers had no intention to give up and comply with the upcoming law.
Mahmud Kadaglu, Chairman of the National Health Committee has declared that major tobacco companies, Philip Morris International and British American Tobacco have agreed to submit a collective suit to the Council of State (the Supreme Court in Turkey) to reduce the obligatory size of the graphic health warnings.

The plaintiffs suggest that the obligation of placing that the requirement of putting graphic images on cigarette packs in an effort to lower smoking rates by showing the severe health complications related to smoking will hurt competitive landscape in the industry. The mandatory size of new warnings is at least 65 percent of the packs, according to the cigarette-makers, what would oblige them to remove the logos of their products from the packages as there would be no space for those logos. The plaintiffs also claim that the latest regulation violates their commercial free speech rights, established by World Trade Organization and ratified by Turkey.

The NHS Chairman said that have invited doctors from all spheres of medicine, to take part in the lawsuit as witnesses. He said that tobacco giants have required a delay in execution of the law as long as the case is pending in the Council of State, and added that the latest legislation is not an infringement of international trade laws, mentioning that they are confident that the Council of State will reject the law suit or rule in favor of National Health Committee.

Mahmud Kadaglu as well declared that the health warnings covering at least 65 percent of the packs do not violate WTO standards, according to which it is permitted to cover at least 50 percent of the packs area.
He said it is inadmissible that the plaintiffs are willing to bereave Turkey of its right to protect the health of its residents whereas other nations successfully implement such policies without any difficulties and obstacles from tobacco companies.
According to numerous studies, placing graphic warnings of health consequences of smoking is an effective strategy and helps reduce smoking rates by approximately 5 percent.
The first hearing regarding the lawsuit would be held next week in Istanbul.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Pennsylvania has cut state funding for tobacco prevention programs by 45 percent in the past year, dropping from 26th to 34th in the nation in funding programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit, according to a national report released Dec. 9 by a coalition of public health organizations.

Pennsylvania spends $19.0 million a year on tobacco prevention and cessation programs, including $17.7 million in state funds and the rest from a federal grant. This total is just 12.2 percent of the $155.5 million recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Last year, Pennsylvania ranked 26th, spending $33.2 million on tobacco prevention.

Other key findings for Pennsylvania include:

• In the past year, Pennsylvania has cut state funding for its tobacco prevention program by 45 percent, from $32.1 million to $17.7 million. This is one of the largest cuts of any state.

• Pennsylvania this year will collect $1.43 billion from the 1998 tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes, but will spend just 1.3 percent of it on tobacco prevention programs.

• The tobacco companies spend $533.9 million a year to market their products in Pennsylvania. This is 28 times what the state spends on tobacco prevention.

The annual report on states’ funding of tobacco prevention programs, “A Broken Promise to Our Children: The 1998 State Tobacco Settlement 11 Years Later,” was released by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

“Pennsylvania has taken a big step backward this year and is one of the most disappointing states when it comes to funding programs to protect kids from tobacco,” said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. “Pennsylvania’s leaders need to step up the fight against tobacco by increasing the tobacco tax and restoring funding for tobacco prevention. Even in these difficult budget times, tobacco prevention is a smart investment that reduces smoking, saves lives and saves money by reducing tobacco-related health care costs.”

In Pennsylvania, 17.5 percent of high school students smoke, and 16,100 more kids become regular smokers every year. Each year, tobacco claims 20,000 lives and costs the state $5.2 billion in health care bills.

Eleven years after the 1998 state tobacco settlement, the new report finds that the states this year are collecting record amounts of revenue from the tobacco industry, but are spending less of it on tobacco prevention.

Key national findings of the report include:

• The states this year will collect $25.1 billion from the tobacco settlement and tobacco taxes, but will spend just 2.3 percent of it — $567.5 million — on tobacco prevention programs. It would take less than 15 percent of their tobacco revenue to fund tobacco prevention programs in every state at CDC-recommended levels.

• In the past year, states have cut funding for tobacco prevention programs by more than 15 percent, or $103.4 million.

• Only one state — North Dakota — currently funds a tobacco prevention program at the CDC-recommended level.

• Only nine other states fund prevention programs at even half the CDC-recommended amount, while 31 states and DC are providing less than a quarter of the recommended funding.

The report warns that the nation’s progress in reducing smoking is at risk unless states increase funding for programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit.

The United States has significantly reduced smoking among both youth and adults, but the CDC’s most recent survey showed that smoking declines among adults have stalled.

Currently 20 percent of high school students and 20.6 percent of adults smoke. Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the U.S., killing more than 400,000 people and costing $96 billion in health care bills each year. Every day, another 1,000 kids become regular smokers — one-third of them will die prematurely as a result.

RICHMOND, Va. — States cut funding for state tobacco prevention programs more than 15 percent this year, pushing it further than ever below federally recommended levels, according to a report that a coalition of public health groups is releasing Wednesday.

The states will spend $567.5 million of their own money and $62 million in federal grants on programs to prevent tobacco use — about 17 percent as much as the $3.7 billion the federal Centers for Disease Control recommends, the report says.

Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia trimmed funding for such programs this year. New York cut the most at $25.2 million, or 31 percent, the report said.

“All the states are struggling to figure out how they’re going to keep services whole in their states, and there are no easy places left to look,” said Debra Miller, director of health policy for the Council of State Governments.

States will collect more than $25 billion in a combination of tobacco taxes and legal settlements from the tobacco industry this fiscal year. They will spend about 2.3 percent of that on programs to prevent or stop tobacco use, the report says.

Released by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and several other groups, the report says smoking-related health care costs $95.9 billion annually nationwide.

Tobacco companies agreed in 1998 to settle lawsuits several states brought over smoking-related health care costs by paying them about $206 billion over more than two decades.

The largest U.S. tobacco company, Altria Group Inc. — based in Richmond, Va., and maker of Skoal chewing tobacco and top-selling Marlboros — pays a majority of that. Spokesman David Sutton said states should use more of the settlement money for youth smoking prevention and health-related initiatives.

Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, said states on average have never spent as much the CDC would like, but the total has declined dramatically in recent years.

Only one state — North Dakota — is meeting its CDC recommendation for this year, $9.4 million. Tennessee trails the list, spending only $1.5 million for prevention, compared with the $71.1 million the CDC recommends.

Guwahati: A task force comprising personnel of Guwahati Municipal Corporation and Assam Tobacco Control Cell has been constituted to stop tobacco consumption in the state.

GMC’s chief health officer Dr Banajit Choudhury today said the task force would visit public establishments like hotels, restaurants, discos, bars, libraries, cultural halls, public buildings etc. for monitoring and compliance of the smoke free law.

It has also been decided to advertise in newspapers about the ban on sale of tobacco products to and by minors, sale of tobacco products within 100m of educational institutions and ban on prominent advertisement of tobacco products.

The GMC would select some educational institutions to create awareness in the first phase, Choudhury said adding raids would be conducted near some educational institutions for violation of the law and issue anti tobacco message in Property Tax forms and receipts.

October 14, 2009 Dnaindia

By reducing smoking and tobacco use, an adequately-funded tobacco prevention and cessation program would reduce a range of non-healthcare costs throughout the District, such as the amount of property damage and loss from smoking-caused fires and smoking-caused cleaning and maintenance costs, which total in the billions nationwide. But the biggest non-health-cost benefit might be the impact of the smoking declines on improving worker productivity and reducing related losses.

Currently, the CDC estimates that the productivity losses in DC from productive work lives being shortened by smoking-caused death total more than $232 million each year. DC’s employers also suffer from substantial additional productivity losses caused by employees who smoke or use other tobacco products being sick more often, smoking employees taking cigarette breaks and being less productive on-the-job, and productive employees having to stop working because they are suffering from smoking-caused disease or disability. For example, one study found that smoking hurts productivity because employees who smoke are absent from work on average 6.16 days per year due to illness, whereas nonsmokers are absent on average 3.86 days per year. Similarly, a study done for the Indiana Health Department determined that the cost of smoking employees to businesses in just a single Indiana county totaled $260.1 million per year from increased absenteeism and lost productivity, higher health insurance premiums, and increased recruitment and training costs from smoking employees’ premature retirement and death.

By reducing smoking among workers, a fully-funded prevention and cessation program would cut public and private sector employer productivity losses by improving worker health and on-the-job performance, reducing the amount of smoking-caused work absences and work-time cigarette breaks, and reducing the number of productive work years lost from smoking-caused illness or disability interrupting or prematurely ending healthy and productive work lives. A healthier, more productive workforce would not only help existing city government and business employers, but would also make DC more attractive to businesses that might be considering leaving the city or other businesses the might be considering relocating to Washington, DC.

While DCTFF has made impressive progress with its current budget, tobacco use continues to take its toll on DC residents, especially in Wards 5 through 8, and more funding is needed to enable it to continue the work it has already started. DCTFF has implemented a model that specifically targets the underserved, low SES smokers who are less likely to have access to evidence-based treatments, and provides significant support to these smokers through cessation services.

Tobacco use kills more than 700 DC residents every year and costs the District $243 million just in annual excess health care costs – much of it borne by taxpayers. Productivity losses from smoking total an additional $232 million per year in the District, not even counting the productivity declines from smokers being sick more often than other workers and taking cigarette breaks while on the job. Despite recent progress in reducing smoking rates, 16.2 percent of adults in DC still smoke, a rate that varies widely among different wards. Youth also continue to smoke – 10.5 percent of high school kids smoke, and 8.1 percent of high school males use smokeless tobacco products. More than 1,600 District kids try smoking in the state each year and 400 more kids become regular, daily smokers every year, one-third of whom will die prematurely.* Statistics can be numbing, but we cannot forget that they represent mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, colleagues and friends. Their suffering and their deaths have devastated too many families and communities.

The CDC recommends that DC spend $10.5 million per year on a comprehensive tobacco control program that includes District-wide and community programs and media campaigns to prevent kids from starting to smoke and to help smokers quit.4 Not including grant money from the CDC, DC only spent $3.6 million on tobacco prevention in FY 2009. This ranks DC 15th in the country in funding tobacco control programs.

At the same time, DC received $74.9 million from the 1998 tobacco lawsuit settlement payments, related bonus payments, and its tobacco taxes. The tobacco settlement was meant to provide funds to support state tobacco prevention efforts; but, so far, DC has not adequately allocated the tobacco settlement payments to prevent and reduce tobacco use and its harms.

Meanwhile, tobacco companies are spending at least $16.0 million annually on marketing and promoting their products in the District, especially in the Wards where you see the highest tobacco use rates. Many of these efforts target specific populations and are meant to encourage youth to start smoking, either by making the products look attractive or by lowering the product price to make them accessible to price-sensitive youth. Tobacco companies’ own documents reveal how they consider youth the future of their business.

Although the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement placed some restrictions on tobacco company marketing activities, it failed to address many important matters. For example, the tobacco companies significantly increased their point-of-sale advertising after the MSA’s ban on tobacco billboards went into effect. This trend continues today as tobacco companies have recently focused on in-store promotions and point-of-purchase advertising to attract younger smokers.

This benefits the tobacco companies since research indicates that retail cigarette advertising increases the likelihood that youth will initiate smoking and cigarette promotions increase the likelihood that youth will move from experimentation to regular smoking.5
In addition, evidence clearly demonstrates that the tobacco industry targets the African-American community through intense advertising and promotional efforts. African-American communities have been bombarded with cigarette advertising – research indicates that there is more interior and exterior tobacco advertising in retail outlets in low-income communities and communities with larger African-American populations. In addition, since the MSA, the average youth in the United States is annually exposed to 559 tobacco ads, every adult female 617 advertisements, and every African American adult 892 ads.

Further, new and less-expensive candy- and fruit-flavored products are being marketed aggressively, and young people are the most likely to use them.* A proven-effective way to oppose tobacco companies’ attempts to attract youth to a lifetime of addiction and health problems is to invest in a comprehensive tobacco prevention program.

Highlights of a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Veterans Affairs Department to combat tobacco use in the military.

Findings:

— Tobacco is used by fewer than 20 percent of Americans compared with more than 30 percent of active-duty military personnel and about 22 percent of veterans.

— Tobacco use in the military has risen since 1998, threatening to reverse steady declines for several decades.

— The rate of smoking among military personnel returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may be 50 percent higher than the rate of those who didn’t go there.

— The Defense Department spends more than $1.6 billion a year on tobacco-related medical care, increased hospitalizations and lost days of work.

— In 2008, the Veterans Affairs Department spent more than $5 billion treating veterans with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is linked to tobacco use.

Recommendations:

—Establish a timeline to ban all tobacco use on military installations, starting with military academies and officer training programs in both universities and the military, followed by new recruits and then active-duty personnel.

—Stop discounting tobacco products in military commissaries and exchanges and eventually stop selling them altogether.

—Prohibit tobacco use anywhere on military installations.

—Remove federal legislation that requires VA facilities to set up designated smoking areas, allowing them to become smoke-free.

—Engage top officials at the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments to implement and enforce comprehensive tobacco-control programs.

___

Source: June 2009 report, “Combating Tobacco In Military and Veteran Populations,” by the Institute of Medicine in Washington. The institute was chartered in 1970 as part of the National Academy of Sciences.

Copyright 2009 Newsday

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India (MOHFW, GOI) had mandated that all tobacco products manufactured/ packaged/ imported in India on or after 31 May 2009 have to display pictorial health warnings, as specified in the notification dated 15 March 2008.

However, a civil society led monitoring exercise has revealed blatant violations that are taking place across India, in the enforcement of this crucial public health and corporate accountability provision of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003. A total of 60 tobacco product packages (from 9 states of India), manufactured on or after 31 May 2009 were analyzed (17 smoking forms and 43 smokeless forms). These products were purchased from retail sale outlets from 15 July 2009 onwards, considering that the already existing old stock of products available in the market would need a period of 4-6 weeks to be exhausted.

On close scrutiny, it has been revealed that a majority of the tobacco packs analyzed either do not display any pictorial warnings at all or the warnings displayed are not in conformity with the rules notified by the Government.

“The intent with which this provision was notified is not being fulfilled. The coming into force of the warnings was already delayed by two years and now this provision is ineffectively enforced. The notification 30 dated July 2009 which notified the officers responsible for implementing the packaging and labelling rules came two months after the enforcement date of this provision of the law. By then most tobacco product manufacturers had violated this law” said Monika Arora, Director, HRIDAY.

Some of the key deficiencies reported in this study include:

* Size of the pictorial warning: Pictorial warnings are occupying less than the stipulated 40% of the principal display area of the pack. Of the 60 products analyzed, 25 brands of gutka, 10 brands of khaini and 2 brands of bidi carry smaller warnings.

* Misleading descriptors on the pack: These are prohibited but still appear on some of the tobacco products analyzed. Five cigarette brands and 4 chewing tobacco brands contain such descriptors.

* Promotional messages on the pack: Messages promoting tobacco use appear on the packs of 10
brands.

* No pictorial warnings: Several tobacco products do not display any pictorial warnings at all. Eight brands of chewing tobacco and 9 brands of smoking forms of tobacco do not have any warnings. These include international brands as well.

* Incorrect warnings: Three brands were found carrying incorrect warnings

* Language: In some of the products, the warnings are not displayed in the regional language in which the brand name is mentioned, as mandated by the law.

“Some gutka companies are again circumventing pictorial warnings by covering 40% area of the pack with white colour and devoting much less space to the warning. The Government should hold them accountable in interest of public health and social justice” said Bobby Ramakant, Indian Society Against Smoking, Asha parivar.

“Enforcement of pack warnings is very weak in Kerala especially on bidi and chewing tobacco product packs. Today also lakhs of packets of Dinesh Bidi come to the market without pack warnings. The reason told by the company is the bulk stock of non-warning wrappers. The Government’s inaction on the violation reflects its attitude towards the health of the people” said Saju Itty, Executive Officer, Kerala Voluntary Health Services (KVHS).

“It is almost scandalous that even after such a long time many tobacco products do not carry stipulated warnings and those who carry it, try to circumvent the rules in every possible way. This situation has developed because word ’sold’ used in the gazette notification was changed to the word ‘manufactured/ imported’ in the public notices issued by the ministry. This has clearly sent wrong signals to the industry about the seriousness of the implementation” said Dr PC Gupta, Director, Healis- Sekhsaria Institute for Public Health, Mumbai.

These violations have been documented and the report has been submitted to MOHFW, GOI, with a request to take cognizance of these violations and ensure that continuance and reoccurrence are prevented.

A set of recommendations have also been submitted to the Government to upscale the enforcement of pictorial warnings. These include:
- Introduction of a complaint mechanism
- Constitution of Inspection and Compliance Cells (ICCs)
- Issuing compliance guidelines for manufacturers, distributors and retailers of tobacco products
- Uniform placement of pictorial health warnings on all tobacco packs, preferably on the top edge of the pack
- Mandatory depiction of the warnings in at least one regional/local language specific to the region of sale

Civil society organizations are keen to work in partnership with the Central and State Governments to take stock of violations, improve enforcement and increase compliance at all levels. This includes the development of a thorough nationwide enforcement mechanism based on the recommendations submitted for the Government’s perusal.

This study was collaboratively undertaken by Advocacy Forum for Tobacco Control (AFTC) member organizations: Cancer Foundation of India, West Bengal; Healis Sekhsaria Institute for Public Health, Maharashtra; Health Related Information Dissemination Amongst Youth (HRIDAY), Delhi; Indian Society against Smoking ,Uttar Pradesh; Institute of Public Health, Karnataka; Dr Mira Aghi, Delhi; National Organisation For Tobacco Eradication (NOTE), Goa; Rajasthan Cancer Foundation, Rajasthan; Taleem Research Foundation, Gujarat; Voluntary Health Association of India, Delhi and Kerala Voluntary Health Services, Kerala.
Source: Citizen News Service (CNS) – www.citizen-news.org

One pinch of smokeless tobacco is equivalent to five cigarettes. The fire-curing process which converts tobacco leaves to snuff introduces carcinogens.

Contrary to popular belief, smokeless tobacco — snuff and chewing tobacco — has been found to more harmful than cigarettes. Scientists have identified two dozen more carcinogens in smokeless tobacco. Smokeless tobacco can cause oral and pancreatic cancers.

There is another important finding: one pinch of smokeless tobacco is equivalent to five cigarettes. But the dangerous chemicals found in smokeless tobacco are different from what is present in cigarettes.

The research on polycyclic hydrocarbons (PAH) in smokeless tobacco was presented at the 238{+t}{+h} National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (ACS) in Washington.

The scientists found snuff as one of the major sources of PAH, and hence falls in the same category as cigarettes. It was earlier considered that snuff contains only traces of PAH as it is not burned when used. That assumption has been proved to be wrong.

Although snuff is not burnt by the user, the manufacturing process contaminates it with PAH. One of the several steps used in manufacturing it is fire-curing, where the tobacco leaves are turned to snuff. The PAH generated by the smouldering wood, when snuff is fire-cured, contaminates it. It is well known that incomplete burning of wood and coal result in PAH production.

Copyright © 2009 Thehindu

Under a law signed by President Barack Obama on June 22 – the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act – tobacco companies will be required to cover 50 percent of the front and rear panels of cigarette packages with color graphics showing what happens when you smoke and bold, specific labels saying such things as: “WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.” “WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.” “WARNING: Smoking can kill you.”

The first U.S.-mandated label in 1965 tentatively suggested “Cigarette Smoking May Be Hazardous to Your Health.” Although the language changed over time, critics have long dismissed U.S. labeling as anemic and ineffective.

Indeed, the inspiration for the new labeling standards comes from abroad. Canada started the trend in 2000 with a label showing a picture of mouth cancer. “It’s the one that smokers remember more than anything else. Even after nine years,” says David Hammond, a researcher from the Department of Health Studies at the University of Waterloo in Ontario. Since then, he says, more than two dozen countries have picked up on the idea.

A sampling of how explicit the labels can be: Malaysia’s cigarette packs bear a photo of a diseased lung; some in Brazil show a dead fetus lying near cigarette butts; Thailand’s show a person with a hole in his throat, to warn about throat cancer; in New Zealand, it’s a gangrenous foot.

Compare these with the American warning label, which has not changed since 1985: no images, and only a small-type surgeon general’s warning that states: “smoking by pregnant women may result in fetal injury, premature birth and low birth weight.”

While it’s true smoking rates in the U.S. are lower than in other countries – about 20 to 22 percent of the adult American population smokes – experts have long argued a more powerful message would have a greater impact on smoking habits.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 440,000 U.S. deaths are attributed annually to cigarettes. That includes deaths from heart disease, lung cancer, obstructive lung disease and other conditions.

FRANKFORT — Citing problems with underage smokers, Frankfort officials may license businesses that sell tobacco.

Police Chief Rob Piscia said during routine compliance checks his officers have had repeated problems with some retail clerks selling cigarettes to people younger than 18. The clerk who sells tobacco gets a ticket and pays a fine, but there are no repercussions for the business owners.

The village’s land use and policy committee recently decided to recommend a new village-issued license to sell tobacco that could carry a $100 fee and a $250 fine for a first offense. The village also could revoke a retailer’s license, thus prohibiting tobacco sales.

The license could be revoked after a hearing.

The license suspension depends on the circumstances, Piscia said.

The state requires tobacco distributors to be licensed, but not retailers, said Jeff Barr, tobacco program manager for the Illinois Liquor Control Commission.

Through the state commission’s grant program, Frankfort police have distributed packets of information to retailers regarding tobacco sales, and have followed up with compliance checks two or three times a year.

Businesses that have been cited multiple times include Frankfort Tobacco and Always Open, a convenience store, police Cmdr, John Burica said. Walgreens and Gas City also have been cited more than once, but both have more than one location in the village.
Owner made accountable
“The license would give us the authority to go after the owner, not just the clerk,” village administrator Jerry Ducay said. “We want to make sure the business owner takes this responsibility seriously.”

“It makes all the sense in the world to me,” Trustee Kevin Egan said.

He also suggested the village prohibit vending machine sales of tobacco products.

The $100 licensing fee is not designed to make a profit, but to cover the village’s costs for enforcement and administration, Egan said.
Copyright © 2009 Suburbanchicagonews

Amarillo’s hospital district funding priorities committee met on Tuesday and will recommend to the finance board to go ahead and fund next years financial needs for the area’s most active tobacco prevention campaign.

The campaign needs around two hundred seventy thousand dollars for next year’s operations. The funds will go to help prevent tobacco use among the youth of Amarillo and the surrounding area.

Over the past several years there has been major decreases in tobacco use among 6th through 9th graders. The average experimentation age has increased from 11 years old to 14 years old, a stat much better than the state and federal averages.

“Statistics show us that if kids don’t start smoking by the time they’re 19, chances are they never will, so if we can hammer home that message to our kids while they’re in school getting the basic education for everything else, we can prevent future tobacco use thus preventing future indigent care costs for smoking related illness,” said Megan Williams, Director of Tobacco free Amarillo.

Right now 97% of all 6th graders have not tried tobacco here in Amarillo, which is proof the campaign has been working.

The funding decision now goes to the hospital finance board, then to the hospital board, and on to the city commission for final approval.
Copyright © 2009 Connectamarillo

The Cayuga County Legislature decided almost unanimously to reject a settlement deal with the Cayuga Indian Nation regarding cigarette sales tax and to pursue an appeal of a state court’s decision that allows the tribe to sell untaxed cigarettes.
An appellate court ruling on Friday granted the tribe permission to sell untaxed cigarettes, overturning a lower court’s ruling and leading Cayuga and Seneca counties to seek an appeal. On Monday, the tribe offered to throw out a lawsuit against Cayuga and Seneca counties and pay $180,000 to cover their legal fees if the counties agreed to not appeal the judge’s decision.

“We’re not for sale,” Cayuga County Legislator George Fearon, R-Union Springs, said after the Legislature’s executive session Tuesday night.

Dan French, an attorney for the tribe, said the offer was intended to protect taxpayers from what could be an expensive lawsuit. The tribe’s lawsuit seeks at least $500,000 to cover the revenue lost after their Lake Side Trading stores were raided of more than 3 million untaxed cigarettes in November and they were ordered to cease selling cigarettes in March.

“At some point the leaders of Cayuga and Seneca counties might avail themselves of the Cayuga Nation’s good faith efforts to resolve these issues through negotiations French said. “Tonight’s decision is obviously not a step in that direction.”

Cayuga County Legislator Daniel Schuster was the sole desenter in Tuesday night’s vote to move forward with an appeal.

“The opposition is not really the Cayuga Nation,” Schuster said. “The opposition is the state,” which has not sufficiently enforced its tax laws.

In addition, Schuster said, a case against the tribe brings up additional issues that were, at the moment, unpursued, if unresolved. The condition in the court’s decision Friday that allows the tribe to sell untaxed cigarettes is the designation of their property as a qualified reservation.
Copyright © 2009 Auburnpub

A proposed ban on tobacco would end sales on U.S. military bases and prohibit uniformed soldiers from smoking, even in combat, authorities said.

The ban was proposed in a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, USA Today reported.

The study, which recommends phasing out tobacco products during a 5- to 10-year period, said tobacco use impairs military readiness and can cause lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, CNN reported Sunday.

While any final decision rests with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, many in uniform would oppose such a ban, said retired Gen. Russel Honore, known for his ever-present cigar when he coordinated military relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

“When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference,” Honore said.

One in three U.S. service members uses tobacco, compared with one in five adult Americans overall, the VA said, noting combat veterans are 50 percent more likely to use tobacco than soldiers who haven’t seen combat.
Copyright © 2009 Upi

The Ready-Steady-Cook star and restaurateur is leading the Save Our Pubs & Clubs campaign calling for changes to the blanket ban which came into force in 2007.

Campaigners say the ban is “ripping the heart out” of British pubs, which are now closing at a rate of 40 a month, and want publicans to be allowed to tempt customers back by permitting smoking in some areas.

Around 250 pubs have signed up to the campaign and organisers hope thousands more will follow.

MPs from all three main parties have also leant their support.

Mr Worrall Thompson is one of 19 signatories to a letter in today’s Daily Telegraph calling for the ban to be relaxed.

He said: “The smoking ban has had an extraordinarily detrimental effect on pubs and clubs and you can understand why. They used to be bastions of adult entertainment where young and old could meet and chat over a pint without the health police looking over their shoulders… The legislation as it stands is excessive and I would like to see it amended.”

The campaign is aiming to secure amendments to the ban when it comes up for review in 2010. Options being put forward include allowing pubs to provide sealed smoking rooms with modern ventilation systems, repealing the ban in all pubs except those which serve food, and allowing publicans to choose whether their venues are smoking or non-smoking.

Neil Rafferty, a spokesman for the campaign, said: “This ban is absolutely ripping the heart out of the pub industry and it is hugely unpopular.

“There are tens of thousands of lifelong Labour supporters who are deeply, deeply angry about the ban and who will never vote Labour again while it still stands. It must be changed.”
Copyright © 2009 Telegraph

One of the best hospitals in the UK states 30 percent of treated minors got ill because of exposure to secondhand smoke by their parents.

Dr Ronald Clark, head of Cardiac Surgery Department at the Birmingham Children’s Hospital admits such diseases as asthma, tonsillitis, and otitis could be reduced in case parents gave up smoking habit.

Dr. Clark stated that he often had cases when parents even hidden the fact that they had been smoking in presence of children.

According to The British Department of Health more than 16,000 children under five years old are treated annually from the smoking related illnesses.

In an interview with Sunday Times, Dr Ronald Clark said that the hospital treats almost 140,000 annually. From this number, 10,000 minors got there because of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Dr. Clark said among those children treated from asthma and various ear and throat infection up to 30 percent were those who suffered from passive smoking.

Parents are often negligent with their children, particularly in such issues as smoking, since having a child and taking care of him is fun, but when it turns to renouncing from such habits like smoking it becomes rather stressful and difficult.

However, the doctor says he does not believe the stricter anti-smoking policies would contribute to reducing the issue, but thinks it is up to parents to protect their children from the hazards of secondhand smoke.

The highest level of health risk for children presents exposure to secondhand smoke in cars, what is like a gas chamber with no way out for them.

Children are also exposed to a high level of risk when mothers are smoking especially during breastfeeding and yearly years of their lives.

Other things that expose children to cigarette smoke are the clothes of smokers.

Dr. Clark even stated that the Birmingham Children’s Hospital forces its personnel to put on special clothes when going outside for a smoke in order to prevent children from smelling and breathing in the cigarette smoke from their clothes.

Dr Anna Gilmore from anti-smoking group ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) said that more than a half of all children whose parents are regular smokers have been exposed to the dangerous smoke from their birth.

She said that passive smoking is even more hazardous than active, however many smokers simply do not realize that they expose their own children to probable severe health complications, while smoking in their presence.

Dr Gilmore also stressed that after smoking has been prohibited in all indoor public places, parent-smokers should consider their homes as a public place and light up outside.

A study made public several years ago showed that minors whose parents smoked were five times more likely to start smoking themselves and two times more likely to suffer from various respiratory infections than their peers born to non-smoking parents.

The Health Department also issued a statement, admitting that passive smoking has been proven to be deadly, and therefore, they would apply every possible effort to make people aware of the hazards of cigarette smoke and prevent children from being exposed to it.

The Health Department spokesman said they have spent £50 million on Smoking Cessation Programs and Campaigns, and their efforts did not go in vain since they managed to reduce smoking rates by 1.5 percent and they plan to reduce it even more to the historical low 21 percent next year.

The risk of lung cancer increases for those smokers who have a tendency to binge drinking. This was found by the Kuopio Ischemic Heart Disease Risk Factor Study (KIHD), conducted at the University of Kuopio in Finland.

The KIHD study has followed up a cohort of men from eastern Finland for about 17 years. Binge drinking was found be associated with an increased risk of lung cancer among those who had smoked between 1 and 30 years regardless of how many cigarrettes a day they smoked. Meanwhile, binge drinking was not associated with any increased risk of lung cancer among non-smokers.

Because the risks were observed among smokers alone, other effects of smoking cannot be completely ruled out in interpreting the research results.

The study is part of the Academy of Finland’s research programme on Substance Use and Addictions.
Copyright © 2009 Sciencedaily

A few days ago, WCAX filed a brief story whose title and contents summarize everything that is wrong with our society’s current attitude toward smoking. I’ll reproduce it here in full.

It turns out there is an upside to higher taxes; it may be the key to getting people to quit smoking.

A year after New York raised its cigarette tax to $2.75-per-pack, which is the highest in the nation, the number of adult smokers is at the lowest rate ever recorded.

The Health Department says the state saw the number of adult smokers drop 12 percent between 2007 and 2008.

And the title? “High Taxes are the New Nicorette.”

First off, let me say that that analogy alone is horrendously dishonest. Nicorette is a product; people choose whether or not to buy it. It’s a successful product because many, many people want to cut down on smoking, or quit altogether. They choose to spend their money on bitter, foul-tasting gum because they believe in the benefits associated with it. So they voluntarily part with their money.

High taxes, on the other hand, are not a choice. If you refuse to pay them, you go to jail. Comparing a voluntary business transaction based on the promise of mutual benefit to a government-enforced act of coercion and theft is akin to comparing apples to razor blades. One is good for you; the other will cut you if abused.

Ah, but sales taxes are different, and can be avoided by choosing not to buy the taxed product in question! That, the social engineers say, is the “key” to forcing a lifestyle change upon free individuals. And that is why we need to look very skeptically and critically at the motives of these nanny statists, and at the constitutional ethics of their coercive actions.

It’s time to back up a few steps and look at the big picture here.

Could high tobacco taxes “encourage” people to quit smoking, and decrease the number of overall smokers? Sure they could. Taking the New York figures at face value isn’t difficult; making a product artificially more expensive will naturally decrease its usage. This basic truth alone is touted by nanny statists as the “proof” that higher taxes are the answer to creating a better, more healthy society.

Is it though?

I’ve read the United States Constitution. More than once. It’s a beautiful document, and much more pleasurable to read than the current U.S. tax code. Unlike that mammoth, depressing document, Article I, Section 8 gets right to the point: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.”

And no, the “general Welfare” does not mean “anything the governor of New York, the Congress, or Barack Obama thinks it should mean.” When the Constitution was being drafted, the anti-federalists were right to be concerned that this clause would be abused, and that it would serve as a loophole for unlimited and oppressive government. James Madison calmed their fears in Federalist No. 41:

It has been urged and echoed that [the power to collect taxes for the “general welfare”] amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the… general welfare… But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?… For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?

If forcing people to quit smoking had fallen under the purview of the “general welfare” clause, the Framers would have specifically included it. It doesn’t, and they didn’t.

That being the case, the near-rape of smokers with high tobacco taxes, federal or state, is unconstitutional. Any power not specifically afforded to the federal government by the Constitution is automatically reserved for the states, but not if that power happens to violate the Constitution. That’s why federal intervention was necessary to overturn state segregation laws during the turbulent Civil Rights era.

The Constitution is not an obsolete or irrelevant document; it is the bedrock of liberty upon which this nation rests. Adherence to it, and observance of it, is critical to safeguarding that liberty. It’s the main source of principles in politics.

Unfortunately, too many control freaks in all levels of government have abandoned those principles in favor of Pragmatism – the overrated “practical” doctrine that encourages the use of whatever approach “works,” principles be damned. Well, as WCAX demonstrated, high tobacco taxes “work,” but are they constitutional? Are they ethical? Are they right?

The Framers say no.

Millions of people in this country choose to smoke, and millions choose to quit. People appreciate and value their freedom to choose, and nowhere in our founding documents is there a justification for abusing the tax code to micromanage their lives for the sake of some elusive common good.

It’s time to cut down on Pragmatism and focus on principles again.

Plus, if using tobacco taxes to pay for socialized medicine is still “in,” then that’s another reason the federal and state governments should think twice about forcing their unwilling benefactors to give up the habit that will supposedly help create a perfect, fair, government-run rationing scheme.

Copyright © 2009 Examiner

There is a quit smoking weight gain rumour that is going around. Many smokers worry that they will gain weight when they quit smoking. But is that true? If so, why would anyone gain weight when they quit?

The reason is that over the years, smoking has dulled your sense of taste with that layer of nicotine. When you quit, your taste buds start to work again. With better sense of taste, it is no wonder that your appetite also increases.

For most smokers, the withdrawals symptoms that show up when you stay away from nicotine can be a very agitated experience. One way to stop the body urge for nicotine is to eat.

The action of unwrapping your food and putting into your mouth is very similar to smoking and provide your body with a surge in sugar that helps to keep your mind from thinking about nicotine. Unfortunately, the cravings will return once you stop eating.

That needs to be a better way to break your smoking routine. One very effective way is to exercise. Exercising not only burn off your calories but push your metabolic rate higher so that you will burn your food much more effectively.

In addition, your body will release that feel good chemical called endorphins. Doctors have even found that your body can release various chemicals that can help you stop smoking!

In fact, exercising can make you feel good about yourself and that can help to enhance your self esteem. That will definitely make you feel good about quitting smoking.

Although the quit smoking weight gain syndrome does have some truth behind it, all is not lost. Keep in mind that the risks of smoking are much too high and not quitting is putting your health in danger. People generally put on weight due the reasons above but if you can control your diet and exercise regularly, you will be fine.

In order to bring attention to the dangers of tobacco, May 31st is World No Tobacco Day, WNTD. The World Health Organization, WHO, has been shining the spotlight on the harmful effects of tobacco use and various tobacco company practices since 1987. In 1988, a resolution was passed dedicating May 31st World No Tobacco Day. Countries and communities around the world participate in the annual event in order to stomp out tobacco use.

The theme for 2009 is “Tobacco Health Warnings” which highlights the effectiveness and importance of images and picture Photo: World No Tobacco Day Poster / WHOwarnings when warning people just how dangerous tobacco use can be. And as they say, a picture IS worth 1000 words!

According to the WHO:

* Nearly half of all smokers will die from a tobacco related disease.
* Everyone exposed to second-hand smoke is affected in some way.
* More than 5 million people die every single year from the effects of tobacco.

Copyright © 2009 Examiner

Many countries require that tobacco product* packaging includes health warnings about the risks associated with tobacco use. Health warnings on tobacco product packages are effective in highlighting the perception of health risk , supporting the intention to quit tobacco use, discouraging the intention to begin tobacco use, and increasing cessation rates. Prominent displays of health warnings increase their effectiveness; larger warnings, with pictures, are more likely to be noticed, better communicate health risks, provoke greater emotional response, and further motivate tobacco users to quit. This report assesses the current status of tobacco packaging health warning requirements worldwide. Governments could further discourage tobacco use by requiring prominent health warnings on tobacco packaging.

Placing health warnings on tobacco product packages was one of the key evidence-based interventions included in the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO-FCTC), the first public health treaty negotiated under WHO auspices, which was adopted in 2005. Within 3 years, participating countries agreed to implement health warnings describing the harmful effects of all tobacco products. Article (Packaging and labeling of tobacco products) of WHO-FCTC requires government bodies such as ministries of health to approve and ensure the display of large, clear, visible, and legible warnings on at least 30%, and preferably 50% or more, of the principal display area of tobacco packages.

In early 2007, WHO’s Tobacco Free Initiative collected information about legally mandated use of tobacco health warnings through a questionnaire distributed to all 193 WHO member states and one territory. Data specific to health warnings were collected for seven criteria: 1) mandate of specific tobacco use health warnings; 2) inclusion of health warnings on tobacco packs and outside packaging; 3) use of large, clear, and visible health warnings; 4) rotation of health warnings; 5) use of the principal languages of the country; 6) inclusion of pictorial warnings; and 7) descriptions of specific harmful effects of tobacco use in health.

National data collectors were appointed by ministries of health and local WHO offices in each country to complete the questionnaire; regional data collectors, appointed for each of the six WHO regional offices, verified the accuracy and completeness of the data. The regional data collectors in turn submitted the data for further processing and analysis to the Tobacco Free Initiative. The results were validated by each of the member states and then published in 2008.

Data reported from 176 member states indicated that 77 (44%) did not require any warnings on cigarette packs, and 71 (40%) required warnings covering less than 30% of the principal display area. Among the member states, 23 (13%) had warnings that covered at least 30% of the main package display area and included one of the seven warning criteria. Five countries (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Thailand, and Uruguay) (3%) had warnings that covered 50% or more of the principal display areas and included all seven criteria. Among the 176 countries, 15 (9%) required pictorial warnings, and 66 (38%) countries had laws that ban the use of deceptive marketing terms (such as “light” and “mild”) that falsely convey that a particular product is less harmful than other tobacco products.

The percentage of member states that had no warnings or warnings that covered less than 30% of the principal package display area was high across all WHO regions: African Region (88%), American Region (74%), Eastern Mediterranean Region (82%), European Region (92%), South East Asia Region (82%), and the Western Pacific Region (71%). The level of implementation of health warnings was associated with a nation’s economic status.† Approximately 58% of low-income countries, 45% of middle-income countries, and 24% of high-income countries had not implemented any health warnings

Copyright © 2009 Cdc

The National Tobacco Enterprise (NTE) has announced that it will take severe measure against illegal cigarette distributors and traders in the near future.

When the operation starts it will shut superstores, including small shops who sell illegal products.
The announcement disclosed that currently the enterprise is preparing for the clamp down in collaboration with stakeholders, like customs, police authorities and regional administrations.

The enterprise, which has the exclusive right to produce, import and distribute tobacco in the country said that the illegal trade is affecting its income.
The public relations department of the enterprise said “These products do not meet quality standards and seriously affect the health of the users.”

According to the assessment of the enterprise, currently three types of illegal Rothman cigarettes are distributed.
According to customs, over 40 cigarette brands are imported illegally. These illegal products do not have an expiry date, and also do not state the producer country.
Over the last few years, the enterprise has expanded its market share and introduced a new product, Delight, to the local market. Recently it has been preparing to introduce another new product, Nyala Premium.

Wendu Bekele public relation head of NTE, told Capital: “This new product will have high quality, like internationally branded tobaccos. It will enter on the market this Ethiopian budget year.”
Currently, the demand for Delight cigarettes is increasing, and production has been increased by the enterprise top match.
The enterprise disclosed that in the first quarter of 2009 the company was projected to produce 1456 cartons (each containing 20 packs) of Delight, while it actually produced and distributed 2333 cartons.

NTE produces four kinds of tobaccos: Eleni, Gisila, Nyala, and Delight. It imports Rothmans from Kenya and Marlboro from Europe. It also produces candles.
According to the public relation head, his enterprise market coverage is 62 per cent, with the remainder covered by illegal cigarettes. He said that the enterprise coverage will increase when the new product enters the market.

The enterprise has four tobacco farms, 20 hectares in Robe, 1,200 hectares in Blate, 25 hectares in Awassa and 1.5 hectares in Wolyata. The factory is using three types of tobacco plants for its production; virginia, oriental and berle. Aside from its own plantation, the enterprise is also collecting products from other growers. For instance 65 per cent of Virginia and 100 per cent of Oriental type tobaccos are collected from other growers.

Following the Government selling a 22 per cent share of its enterprise to a Yemeni company, Sheba investment and Holding Limited in January 2001 the company recorded a good performance on production and income.
While the remaining 78 per cent is still possessed by the Government, there is a plan to transfer it to a private holding.
Last year (2008) the NTE produced tobacco and candles at the total cost of 154 million birr which exceed its projections by 1.2 per cent and was a 7.1 per cent increase from 2007.

In the same year (2008), the enterprise sold products that for over 652 million birr, which was 75 million birr (13 per cent) above its projections and amounted to a growth of 17 per cent from the previous year.
The enterprise made a 139 million birr profit before tax, but the plan was to make only 123 million birr.
In 2009, NTE is projected to collect 157 million birr profit before tax.
According to studies, only 2.5 per cent of Ethiopians smoke.

As new HIV therapies prolong the lives and improve the health of sufferers, patients have been urged to consider long-term health factors.

Patients with HIV are twice as likely to smoke and also more susceptible to the detrimental effects of smoking due to a swifter decline in lung function, new research shows.

“Early in the epidemic, HIV was a different disease – with few effective drugs, the best that an HIV-positive patient could hope for was a relatively painless death after a brief period,” said Syed Kadri of Ohio State University medical centre.

“The long-term effects of HIV were therefore fairly obvious: death. But with the advent of a new class of anti-retroviral drugs called ‘highly active anti-retroviral therapy,’ or HAART, the clinical picture of HIV has changed. The disease has gone from being an automatic death sentence to a chronic condition, and like all chronic conditions, it brings with it other complications that can seriously affect the lives of those who have it.”

Today’s study evaluated declines in lung function among HIV-positive patients.

Patients involved in the study, mostly men in their 40s, half of whom were smokers, were assessed at baseline for two measures of respiratory status, FEV1 and DLCO, and had been followed for two years at the time of reporting. FEV1 is a measure of expiratory flow in one second, a standard gauge of lung capacity, whereas DLCO is a measurement of diffusing capacity of the lungs and is decreased in patients with emphysema.

At the end of two years, the 63 patients displayed marked declines in lung function, going from an average FEV1 of 88 per cent predicted to 83.2 per cent and a DLCO of 77.6 to 70.0.

“This is the type of decline you might expect to see in elderly individuals who have a long history of smoking,” said Mr Kadri.

“These results indicate that HIV-positive patients are more susceptible to lung-related problems than HIV-negative individuals and that HIV-positive smokers are even more susceptible to developing early emphysema. We don’t know when these differences begin to manifest in HIV-positive individuals who smoke, but the severity is likely a function of the time that they have lived with the disease.”

Beedi workers’ unions in the State are up in arms again with the Supreme Court clearing the Central government law making it mandatory to display pictorial warnings on tobacco packs from May 31.

Consequent to the implementation of Section 7 of the Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act, 2003, it will be compulsory to depict lungs for smoking forms of tobacco packages and scorpion for chewing and smokeless forms.

Ticklish issue

Though the unions agree that the latest pictorial warning was not as harsh as the skull and cross bones as originally proposed, they have demanded that the Centre should first pay attention to the rehabilitation of lakhs of workers, particularly the women, who would be displaced.

They wondered why the beedi industry alone should be targeted when chewing gutkha and consuming alcohol was much more dangerous for human life. The unions also accused the Centre of succumbing to pressure from the powerful cigarette manufacturers’ lobby particularly the mini-cigarette makers, raising a question mark over the fate of the beedi industry.

There are over 10 lakh workers engaged in rolling beedis in Andhra Pradesh with over 6-lakh earning their livelihood in five districts of Telangana alone. Industry estimates put the production at 100 crore beedis per day in the State alone. Wages for rolling 1,000 beedis comes to Rs. 75.

The Andhra Pradesh Beedi and Cigar Workers Union president Siddhi Ramulu said the law was anti-worker and intended at benefiting the multinational companies. A.S. Poshetty, president of the AP Beedi Workers Federation, which represents the interests of 16 unions in Telangana, charged that the government instead of implementing laws concerning the minimum wages and welfare schemes for the workers was serious about implementing the pictorial warning.

Death blow

M. Sirajuddin, president of All-India Beedi, Cigarette and Tobacco Workers Federation said the direction would cripple the beedi industry. Women who formed the bulk of the beedi workers were already feeling the pinch of insecurity said S. Rama, general secretary of AP Beedi and Cigar Workers Union. Two women beedi workers had already ended their lives in Nizamabad and Medak district, perturbed over their future.

Copyright © 2009 Hindu

The debate over whether to have federal oversight of the tobacco industry has resurfaced with the reintroduction of a bill in the U.S. Senate.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., contains few major changes to the one he submitted last year that would put the industry under the auspices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

That bill failed to pass the Senate because Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., threatened to tie up the bill with a filibuster and President Bush opposed the move.

The bill “would stop the marketing of tobacco products to children, require tobacco companies to list the poisons in their products and mandate larger and more effective warning labels on tobacco product packaging,” said John Seffrin, the chief executive of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network.

The latest version of the Kennedy bill does not include a separate category for smoke-free tobacco as a potential harm-reduction product.

Such a provision has been sought by some anti-smoking groups that view smoke-free products, such as moist tobacco, snus and dissolvables, as alternatives for tobacco users who can’t or won’t quit.

“We continue to believe that Sen. Kennedy’s bill is lacking,” said Maura Payne, a spokeswoman for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“It would impede efforts to bring potentially reduced-risk tobacco products to market, would make it difficult for adult tobacco consumers to gain accurate information about the comparative risks between different types of tobacco products, and would task an already overburdened FDA with taking on regulation of a product category about which it has no expertise,” Payne said.

In March, Burr and Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., introduced an alternative bill for federal regulation of tobacco products that would save cigarette companies billions of dollars over the next 10 years.

The proposed Federal Tobacco Act would create a new federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to solely regulate tobacco instead of assigning the task to the FDA.

Also in March, a key House panel approved legislation sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to give the FDA oversight of tobacco. The House passed the bill on April 2 by a 298-112 vote.

Both bills propose paying for the new regulation by imposing “user fees” on tobacco companies, with the largest share paid for by the nation’s two largest cigarette companies, Philip Morris and Reynolds.

Tobacco analysts said that the Burr-Hagan bill has only a slim chance of passing both the House and Senate, though some of its provisions could be incorporated into a final version of the Waxman bill.

Bill Godshall, the executive director of SmokeFree Pennsylvania, said that a drop-off in sponsorship for the Kennedy bill could open the door for an amendment aimed at smoke-free products.

“While Kennedy’s FDA tobacco bill last session had 59 co-sponsors, his new bill has only 40 co-sponsors, including just three Republicans,” Godshall said.

“I suspect that is why Kennedy delayed the bill’s introduction for more than two weeks — to try to get more co-sponsors and/or to get a lead Republican co-sponsor.”

Copyright © 2009 2.journalnow