Does the Toyota acceleration matter have its first smoking-gun document?

The U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is investigating the Toyota recalls and plans to hold a hearing Wednesday, has obtained a document from a Toyota executive, which may have some plaintiffs’ lawyers licking their chops.

The document, from an internal presentation in July 2009 by Yoshimi Inaba, chief of the Japanese auto maker’s North America operations, notes that Toytoa saved money by lobbying federal officials to limit recalls tied to sudden-acceleration complaints, characterizing the lobbying effort as a key company achievement in 2009. Here’s a WSJ article about the document.

Inaba said that Toyota saved more than $100 million by negotiating an agreement with U.S. safety regulators that led to a limited “equipment” recall of Camry and Lexus ES350 vehicles. “Saved 100M+, w/no defect found,” the document states under a section labeled “Wins For Toyota—Safety Group.”

The company blamed incidents on floor mats, instead of a potentially more costly defect with the car itself. The power point also lists among “wins” the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s decision to close safety investigations of the Toyota Tacoma truck without ordering recalls, and delays to new safety rules that saved the company hundreds of millions of dollars.

Toyota has since recalled about 6 million U.S. vehicles for sudden-acceleration and gas-pedal problems.

Inaba is scheduled to testify before the House Oversight committee, along with Toyota President Akio Toyoda.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have already made noise about how they will try to portray Toyota as putting profits over safety, possibly in support of a claim for punitivce damages. It’s too early, of course, to say whether this document would bolster such a claim or whether it would ever even be admissible in a case.

A spokesman for California Rep. Darrell Issa, the senior Republican on the House Oversight committee, said the document raises questions about how Toyota responded to years of concerns of sudden acceleration of vehicles.

There are questions “whether Toyota was lobbying for less rigid actions from regulators to protect their bottom-line,” said spokesman, Kurt Bardella. “If anything but the safety of America’s drivers influenced the decision-making process, the entire purpose of NHTSA will be undermined.”

Olivia Alair, a Transportation Department spokeswoman, all called the document “very telling.”
“It’s the responsibility of auto makers to come forward when there is a problem,” she said.

But Toyota said in a statement: “Our first priority is the safety of our customers and to conclude otherwise on the basis of one internal presentation is wrong.”

TOKYO — Toyota said Friday its chief, under pressure to face US lawmakers over mass safety recalls, had postponed a visit to Washington until early March, as the company considers disclosing all its vehicle flaws.

The Japanese giant, battling accusations in the United States that it dragged its feet in responding to a series of safety problems, declined to say whether president Akio Toyoda would miss a February 24 congressional hearing.

“The president was planning to go to Washington as early as February 10 but was forced to change it due to heavy snow. At the moment he plans to reschedule it to around early March,” company spokeswoman Mieko Iwasaki said.

The top Republican on a House committee looking into the company’s handling of dangerous defects said Wednesday he would ask the panel’s chairman to invite Toyoda to take part in the February 24 hearing.

US Representative Darrell Issa said US lawmakers were eager to “hear directly” from the Toyota chief about the auto giant’s woes.

Toyota, the world’s biggest carmaker, has been accused in the United States of being too slow to act on the accelerator and brake problems behind the recalls of more than eight million vehicles worldwide.

In a bid to regain consumer confidence after massive vehicle recalls, Toyota plans to disclose all flaws it fixed following complaints from drivers, the Yomiuri Shimbun said Friday. Related article: Toyota to disclose all vehicle flaws

Toyota is believed to potentially be the first major automaker to disclose all information on problems with its cars, including minor flaws such as difficulty in closing doors or shifting seats, the newspaper reported.

“We are now considering concrete measures to promote information disclosure on quality improvement,” the Toyota spokeswoman said.

Toyota faces a host of class action lawsuits in the United States, where Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood vowed Wednesday to hold Toyota’s “feet to the fire.”

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform had set a hearing for February 10, but put it off because of a winter storm lashing Washington and an intervening congressional recess next week.

Toyota’s North America president Yoshimi Inaba is scheduled to appear at the February 24 hearing. Further congressional hearings on the matter are also scheduled for the following day and on March 2.

The Asahi Shimbun reported Friday that Toyoda planned to face the US Congress but was waiting for a formal invitation before making a firm decision.

Toyota’s recalls cover models with accelerator problems blamed for several deadly high-speed crashes, as well as brake system trouble in the Prius and other hybrid models.

A federal court hearing in San Diego next month will aim to group legal action involving 22 law firms across 16 states involving Toyota vehicle owners chasing financial compensation as a result of the crisis.

Tim Howard, a professor of law at Northeastern University and a leading authority in consumer law cases, is coordinating the latest wave of lawsuits under the banner of Attorneys Toyota Action Consortium (ATAC).

Howard, who helped win a 20-billion-dollar settlement for the state of Florida during the wave of litigation against big tobacco in the 1990s, said the Toyota cases would be one of the biggest in US history.

“This is the strongest and largest case for economic damages to American consumers we’ve ever had,” Howard said.

Toyota faces more potential trouble after US authorities said they may investigate some models of its best-selling Corolla after receiving more than 80 complaints that its steering veers off-centre at high speeds.

In another blow to the image of Japanese car makers, Honda on Wednesday recalled more than 400,000 vehicles to fix airbags that it said can explode and spray out potentially deadly metal shards.

TRENTON — New Jersey has enacted restrictions on the sale and use of electronic cigarettes.

Gov. Jon Corzine on Monday signed into law legislation that prohibits the use of electronic smoking devices in workplaces and other indoor public places and prohibits their sale to minors.

Electronic cigarettes look like the real thing but don’t contain tobacco. Instead, they employ a metal tube with a battery that heats up a liquid nicotine solution. Users inhale and exhale the resulting water vapor.

The bill’s sponsor, Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, a Republican from Summit, said the restrictions are a matter of erring on the side of caution because the health risks associated with e-cigarettes have not been fully determined.

When can a cigarette be legally smoked in a place of business, restaurant, bar or even on a commercial airplane?

Anytime would be the answer if the “cigarette” is one of the electronic products now on the market.

The “healthier alternative” by Smart Smoker is similar to a patch or chewing gum, as it provides an alternative nicotine delivery system, that is available in pharmacies to help a person in his quest to stop smoking.

Smart Smoker recently arrived on the Franklin County scene in two locations, including Family Pharmacy and Raven’s Country Store.

While the product contains degrees of nicotine, ranging from high to none, there is no odor or tobacco-related danger from the liquid-based vapor smoke that is emitted when the cigarette is “puffed” or inhaled.

The electronic cigarette kit comes in a menthol or regular tobacco-like taste. It emits a red glow on the end when it is being “puffed.” The end is also gray and resembles ashes, and the filter is brown in color. The only visible difference is that the plastic cigarette has a shiny appearance.

Not only is Smart Smoker an alternative to regular cigarettes, it is also cheaper to use, according to Howard Schapiro, who smoked two to three packs of cigarettes a day before he saw the product on the “Doctor” television program early this year.

“I’ve had two heart attacks, but I just couldn’t not stop smoking. My doctor told me he couldn’t help me anymore me unless I stopped smoking,” he said.

“So I went online and checked it out. When I got to the comments section and asked about it being available in the United States, it (the product) hadn’t reached here yet,” he said.

“So I got in touch with the company in England, and the next thing I knew, I was on an airplane going over to the U.K.,” Schapiro added. “Now, I supply the product to Layman’s Candy and Tobacco Co. in Roanoke. They liked what they saw and took a chance on it.”

“I have stopped smoking cigarettes and now use Smart Smoker,” he said. “But I an still able to use that hand-to-mouth habit developed in smoking.”

The back of the box notes that the product is 100 percent legal to smoke any place, there is no pollution, no tar, 80 percent cheaper than cigarettes with no passive smoke.

“While it’s perfectly legal to use, the final word is up to the business, restaurant or store owner. If he says you can’t use it, then you have to do what he says,” Schapiro explained.

“The liquid smoke I inhale is not harmful, and I get the taste of tobacco. Of course, there was a difference in the taste of what I was smoking and what I got using this product,” he explained. “Like switching brands of cigarettes — it takes a little getting use to.”

The deluxe model contains two batteries (body of cigarette), the atomizer, a wall-model recharger and five cartridges of nicotine — two high, two medium, one low and one none. The deluxe sells for between $55-$60.

One cartridge of nicotine equals about a pack of cigarettes, “once a person gets use to smoking it,” Schapiro said.

Using the various degrees of nicotine from high to low allows the user, if they desire, to wean themselves from their nicotine dependence.

“The smoke is a liquid vapor containing nicotine mixed with either propylene glycol or common glycerin. Both are common food additives,” he said.

Once the five cartridges of the starter kit are used, a five-pack of cartridges can be purchased for about $8, according to Jessica Beckett, manager of Raven’s.

The number of cartridges equals about five packs of cigarettes, equal to paying $2 for a pack of tobacco cigarettes, she added.

Schapiro also noted that if a person takes too many “puffs” of nicotine close together, the light at the end of the cigarette will turn green and shut off for five minutes as a safety measure.

The batteries, like a cell phone, need to be charged after being purchased, Schapiro said. It should be recharged for a full eight hours the first time. Afterwards, the charging time varies from one to three hours. Two batteries are included, so one can be in use while the other is in the charger.

Schapiro said the electronic cigarettes are mostly made in China, but The Smart Smoker Co. Ltd. has the product shipped to the U.K., where changes are made and the product is improved. It has a 60-day guarantee on the electronic parts, and the product is only a 1-percent defect rate once it passes the stringent standards in the U.K, Schapiro added.

Although deemed safe, the company does not sell the produce to anyone under the age of 18.

“We don’t want to attract young people to the product, we want to provide adults with an alternative to tobacco,” Schapiro said.

“It’s very simple to operate,” he explained. “The atomizer screws into the body of the cigarette. Then the cartridge is inserted into the atomizer, and the filter top is placed over the body and covers the cartridge.”

There are only two chemicals used in the Smart Smoker, while there are 4,000 plus in cigarettes, Schapiro continued.

“Smart Smoker is just beginning to break onto the scene in this area. Every time someone sees me ’smoking’ it, they have nothing but questions. They seem to like what they hear,” he added.

Noting that a carton of cigarettes has reached $40 to $50 a carton, “the Smart Smoker is much, much cheaper and has not been found to be harmful, that alone was enough for me,” Schapiro said. “But I am now off tobacco cigarettes.”

“Smart Smoker is not only the answer for someone who wants to quit, but it is also the answer for owners of restaurants and bars in the state worried about the news laws pertaining to second-hand smoke. The safe, odorless, water vapor isn’t offensive to anyone, and I can smoke after a meal,” Schapiro said.
December 21, 2009
By MORRIS STEPHENSON

Large cigarette displays in stores, known as “power walls,” will be illegal across Newfoundland and Labrador beginning Jan. 1, 2010.

Stores owners say they’re getting ready for the new provincial law that will mean they can no longer display, promote or advertise cigarettes.

It’s all part of the province’s plan to cut down the number of people lighting up.

“We’re going to do the simplest thing and put up a curtain,” said Todd Seward, who owns two stores in Labrador City, western Labrador.

Some consumers are pleased with the change.

“You walk into any convenience store and you go up to the cash and it’s right in your face. So I think it’s a great idea to just cover it up,” said Zonya Crew, of Labrador City.

Seward doesn’t expect the new law will affect tobacco sales.

“Its not like buying a candy bar. Most people are loyal to a brand and they come in and ask for that without even looking,” he said.

Virginia, despite joining its counterparts across the Potomac in banning smoking in bars and restaurants, stands apart in its refusal to levy heavy taxes on the sale of cigarettes.

The state takes 30 cents out of every pack of cigarettes, a pittance compared with Maryland and the District and a reminder that the Old Dominion is far from uprooting its tobacco history.

While lawmakers agreed this year to the unprecedented restriction on where someone can smoke — a victory for Gov. Tim Kaine — the General Assembly nevertheless shot down Kaine’s effort to double the cigarette levy to pay for skyrocketing Medicaid costs.

Virginia until five years ago had almost no tax on cigarettes, charging only 2.5 cents per pack. The increase to 30 cents in 2004 was the first since the tax was enacted in 1960.

That levy is the third lowest cigarette tax in the nation — higher than only Missouri and South Carolina — and less than a tenth of Rhode Island’s highest-in-the-nation $3.46 per pack charge, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Maryland doubled its tax to $2 per pack in 2007. The D.C. Council matched that tax in 2008, and this year upped the ante to $2.50 a pack.

Virginia lawmakers’ reluctance to follow suit is no doubt linked to the tobacco industry’s presence in the state. Altria — the parent company of tobacco giant Philip Morris — is headquartered in Richmond and is a major campaign donor. Tobacco ranked ninth last year among the state’s most lucrative agricultural products, bringing in $83 million, according to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

By: William C. Flook, Examiner
November 30, 2009

A pub cigarette vending machine supplier has lashed out over proposals to ban machines and disregard new technology.

A total ban on cigarette vending machines now looks almost inevitable after Lords rejected an attempt to stop it. Lords also rejected proposals to allow more tightly controlled machines, operated by remote control, to be allowed.

“I am incensed and dismayed that the Lords have betrayed the vending industry by ignoring the technical advances made which effectively stop underage people gaining access to tobacco vending machines,” said Kevin Pascall, managing director of Wolverhampton-based vending company Sinclair Collis.

“Yesterday’s decision means a bleak future for 200 British companies and their employees in what are already tough economic times.”

He added: “The vending industry has worked tirelessly with both the Department of Health and the hospitality industry to provide child-proof vending solutions which utilise radio frequency technology.

“These advances have been recognised by Trading Standards as being effective, workable solutions and it is hugely regrettable that the House of Lords decided to ignore this.

“Following the Lords’ decision, Sinclair Collis will continue to take advice and consider different options but in the meantime we are committed to providing a first class service while we decide on our next course of action in this regard.”

By Ewan Turney
11/11/2009 Morningadvertiser

SAN FRANCISCO, – San Francisco and Berkeley missed an opportunity to help smokers quit when the cities moved all tobacco sales out of pharmacies, according to a new Bay Area health initiative. Instead of having smokers buy cigarettes in convenience stores and at other retailers, smokers should buy cigarettes only at pharmacy counters, says Stuart Skorman, founder of Elephant Pharmacy.

Launching HealthyPharmacies.org, Skorman is focused on making pharmacies centers of health and wellness at the community level. “They can’t just sell medicines to people who are sick. They must educate consumers and give them tools to lead healthier lives.”

Keeping cigarettes behind the pharmacy counter would do just that, Skorman says. When a smoker asks for a pack of cigarettes, pharmacy staff would have the opening to offer nicotine replacement, such as the patch or gum, or point smokers in the direction of counseling and other tools. The approach wouldn’t require a prescription for tobacco but would offer smokers tools to help them quit.

In California alone, more than four million people smoke – more than the entire population of Oregon. About 90 percent of smokers start before age 18 and become addicted to nicotine. That addiction makes it tough to quit: more than 70 percent of smokers want to quit but don’t know how to do it.

Pharmacies are the only stores that are licensed to sell dangerous drugs, and Skorman says tobacco must be treated as such. He believes that tighter controls would not only create access to quit-smoking support but could reduce the powerful point-of-purchase advertising that appeals to youth in convenience stores and other retail locations.

Calling this approach a public health and economic win, Skorman sees great potential for pharmacies to play a powerful role at the community level.

“We’re primarily focused on reducing tobacco use, but this approach would bring more people into pharmacies, too. That’s good for business, and it’s good for the consumers, if they’re receiving positive guidance to live healthier lives,” he said.

HealthyPharmacies.org plans to pilot this concept by working with several cities to limit tobacco sales to only pharmacy counters and then measure the results – including changes in tobacco sales and smoking rates. Skorman is reaching out to public health advocates and pharmacies to partner in this effort and is exploring pilot projects in more than 50 US cities.

HealthyPharmacies.org is working to transform pharmacies from convenience stores into neighborhood health centers. The project has roots in Berkeley’s Elephant Pharmacy – a groundbreaking neighborhood wellness center that also was one of the nation’s most profitable pharmacies. Elephant founder Stuart Skorman started HealthyPharmacies.org to bring the health community and pharmacies together in a way that focuses on improved public health, better service to customers and sustainable business practices.

CONTACT:
Marsha Robertson, 415-968-9432, marsha@healthypharmacies.org
Elysha Rom-Povolo, 415-901-0111, erom-povolo@fenton.com

SOURCE HealthyPharmacies.org

BOYDTON — “That is a pound of tobacco right there,” Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisor Jim Jennings said as he held up a bundle of tobacco leaves during the meeting last week.

“There are about seven million of those growing in Mecklenburg County,” he continued. “This is kind of an awareness in educational thing for me.

“I am a grain of sand on the beach, literally, my farm operation, (compared to other tobacco farmers) but it will produce $7.5 million dollars for the federal government when it has reached it’s finished product; $2.5 million for the state of Virginia and $0 for Mecklenburg County,” Jennings said.

The Virginia Farm Bureau says that the 2007 census said that there are 59 tobacco farms in Mecklenburg County, which is about 3,600 acres and that approximately 7.8 million pounds of tobacco are produced and the County is ranked second in the state in flue-cured tobacco production.
*

“I am not advocating that localities should start taxing tobacco, but I think it is time where there should be a campaign to get some of this money back” Jennings said. “The foundation to get some of this money back is to make everybody aware and educate them as to what it does produce. People just don’t know.

“If you break it down into one pound of tobacco, which is 25 packs of cigarettes, which is two and a half cartons and tax on that is $10 a carton so its $25 bucks a pound.

“On any given day from Aug. 15 through the first of November at the stoplight on the bi-pass in South Hill about $10 million worth of federal excise tobacco taxes goes through that stoplight going to the market. It is unbelievable, people just have no idea. That is about a $400 million dollar a year range out of the county,” Jennings said. He brought with him to the meeting on Tuesday a trailer load of tobacco as after the meeting he was headed to market. He said that his one trailer load would produce the federal government $250,000, the state of Virginia $75,000 and Mecklenburg County $0. He said the trailer contained about 14 bails. He said one bail was about $18,000 for the federal government and about $6 to $7 thousand for Virginia and about $1,500 for the farmer and that the farmer had to pay their expenses out of that.

Jennings said after the meeting that there are three variables that determine how much profit a farmer receives from a crop – weather, disease pressure and management ability. He said that the amount could be from zero to 50 cents per pound of tobacco produced.

“I don’t know where politicians have been over the last 60 years but I think we got caught up in the fight – let’s fight the tax,” Jennings said during the meeting. “I can understand that, but I think now the time has come when the inevitable is there -the tax is going to be there. Well if the tax is being produced through a commodity in this area then let’s get some of the tax back. Let’s not tax it here.

“I would think some of the politicians above us would want to bring some of this back to the area. If they gave just three percent of that federal tax back, it could meet every educational facility need we have in this county. I don’t think this money should go to a street light or sidewalk I think it should go to education.

“The Fifth Congressional District in this state is probably among the top ten money producing districts in the United States only second to some districts in North Carolina. That is pretty impressive,” Jennings said. He said that he met with Fifth District Congressman Tom Perriello, provided him with a bundle of tobacco.

“He seemed amazed at the amount of money tobacco produces the government,” Jennings said. “The only thing more addictive than tobacco is the money the government gets from tobacco!”

“They tax tobacco like this because they think it hurts the citizens,” Jennings said. “That is not the purpose of the tax because they are going to use it and they are going to continue to use it and it is a revenue raising mechanism. That is all it is. How long is it going to be before we say we are going to start taxing red meat because it gives people heart disease?

Jennings said that he would like to meet with Virginia Association of Counties and discuss the need to bring this money back to the counties.

By Lisa Andrews, October 20, 2009 Vancnews

Cigarette canisters have appeared on campus in a hope to reduce the amount of cigarette butts on the ground.

The new slim yellow canisters are all around the Campus Center, and Bakersfield College students have mixed feelings about them.

“I really haven’t noticed them much. I smoke a lot, but I usually chuck my butts in the big trash can after stepping on them,” said Antonio Salver, a BC student.

Sarah Philipp, another BC student, said, “I actually like them a lot. It makes it easy to just chuck them without having to look around for a place.”

The bins were put in by BC Maintenance and Operations in hopes of eventually making BC a cigarette-free campus.

“The new bins were put in place to eliminate odor and to clean up the Campus Center,” said Jimmy “Smitty” Smith from Maintenance and Operations. “Soon we will have a smoke free campus, but this is the first step toward change.”

“I find it completely gross especially when you’re sitting outside trying to eat,” BC student Elizabeth Sanders said of cigarette butts.

But Nathan McVeigh, another BC student, said, “I personally don’t care about the butts. I’m a smoker myself. I never throw them on the ground, though.”

Other groups in Kern County are working on cleaning up cigarette butts, too.

In an effort to raise community awareness about cigarette butt littering, the Kern County Department of Public Health Tobacco Education Program, and the Tobacco Free Coalition of Kern County teamed up with a group of high school students to pick up discarded cigarette butts around town.

The volunteers went to selected Kern County buildings and local parks with playgrounds. The results showed 3,703 cigarette butts were collected in a two-day period.

“Cigarette butts are hazardous. Young children can pick up the cigarette butts and put them in their mouths,” said Claudia Jonah, Kern County public health officer.

Cigarette butts are one of the 10 most littered items around the world. They don’t break down easily and cause pollution in the earth and water for many years.

“I frankly find it disgusting whenever I take my child to a park. I’m always picking up the butts so my little boy doesn’t find them,” said Rhonda Phillips, local resident.

State law prohibits smoking 25 feet from any playground or toddler areas. Also there is no smoking 20 feet from any main building entrances and exits, and all cigarettes must be disposed properly. There is a fine if caught throwing cigarettes from your car, ranging up to $200.

By Matt Humble
10/7/09

The council has been accused of dealing with “traders in death” by investing in tobacco companies.

The attack came from Cllr Maggie Mansell, Labour’s shadow cabinet member for health at Monday’s meeting of the council’s cabinet which backed a new anti-smoking strategy to reduce tobacco consumption across the borough.

The council has around £20m of its pension fund for employees tied up in shares in Imperial Tobacco and British American Tobacco.

Cllr Mansell said while she supported the strategy itself, she wondered how many people would be puzzled by the investments in the industry.

She said: “The tobacco companies are drug traders, they are traders in death.”

But Cllr Dudley Mead, who chairs the council’s pensions committee, made it plain at the meeting that investments would go on.

He pointed out that in 1995 the then Labour council had refused to invest in tobacco companies and he believed that until the investments were restored by the Conservatives the policy had cost the pension fund £35m.

Cllr Mead said later: “The investments in the tobacco companies have been some of our best performers over the years.

“We have to have sufficient resources in the pension fund to ensure we can pay former employees so the burden does not fall on council taxpayers.”

Cllr Mead added: “What some people don’t realise is that buying shares does not mean the money goes to the companies.

“All we are doing is having a share in the success of the businesses.”


by Ian Austen, September 27, 2009
ian.austen@essnmedia.co.uk

You report that the government has been accused of “misleading parliament” over the cost for retailers of implementing the tobacco display ban (Ministers ‘quoted misleading figures’ in tobacco ban debate, 10 September). Under the health bill to be debated next month, it is proposed that cigarettes will still be available to buy, but will be placed out of sight.

The article states: “Internal documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act show that officials at the Department of Health were warned by manufacturers that they had dramatically underestimated how much it would cost retailers to modify their shops to comply with the ban.”

Earlier this year the health minister Lord Darzi said that shops would pay as little as £120 to install professional covers; you report, though, that their Canadian manufacturer said the price quoted “was based on a bulk order and did not include shipping or installation costs”.

However, the manufacturer quoted in writing to me, as well as to the DoH, a price of well under £200 for the cost of covers for a typical tobacco display in an independent small shop in the UK. They also told me that these covers could be fitted by the retailer themselves, without any need for specialist tools.

It is the case that shipping costs were not mentioned in the original quotation to us. However, shipping costs for lightweight plastic covers would not inflate the costs to the “almost £5,000″ claimed in the article, even if they had to be shipped from Canada.

What is clear is that low-cost solutions exist and are already in widespread use in Canada. Small UK retailers will have until 2013 to implement the legislation, allowing ample time to explore a range of solutions.

Smoking is an addiction of childhood, not an adult choice. The tobacco industry needs to recruit over 100,000 new smokers every year in this country – largely children and young people – to replace those who die or quit. The tobacco industry in its own documents admits that the pack and retail displays of the pack are a major promotional tool now that advertising is prohibited, calling the pack “the communication life-blood of the firm … the silent salesman”.

Two-thirds of smokers take up the habit before they reach 18, and half of all smokers will die from their addiction. In Iceland, the first jurisdiction to pass legislation to put tobacco out of sight in 2001, the number of young smokers fell significantly, and laws have now been successfully implemented in nearly all Canadian provinces and Ireland too.

The argument over costs conveniently takes the spotlight off the real issue, which is that putting tobacco out of sight will save lives. For this reason it is supported by the World Health Organisation, the chief medical officer, the health select committee and the House of Lords, as well as by the general public. Legislation to put tobacco out of sight will be put to the vote in the House of Commons on 12 October, when I am confident that MPs too will give it their overwhelming support.

22 September 2009

Vallejo Planning Commissioners were still debating the details of a proposed tobacco sales ordinance at press time Wednesday night.

The ordinance hearing drew about two dozen onlookers and about 10 commentors — mostly in support of some kind of ordinance.

Residents and members of the Vallejo Alcohol and Tobacco Policy Coalition and Solano County Tobacco Education Coalition vied for tougher restrictions on tobacco product-selling businesses and an annual licensing fee that will support enforcement of the ordinance.

The ordinance, as proposed Wednesday night, did not include some of those requests, but would be a catalyst for six tobacco shops in the city to relocate to different zoning districts, likely commercial plazas and shopping centers.

The property owner of the U-Know Smokeshop asked the commission if it will be responsible for paying him back for the loss of a tenant with a 20-year lease, not to mention the likely resulting empty retail space on Tuolumne Street.

Commission Chairman Kent Peterman proposed continuing the hearing until an even more comprehensive ordinance could be forged with the help of interested organizations, residents and smoke shop owners.

Assistant City Attorney Claudia Quintaña pointed out that the City Council sent city staff to specifically look at shops selling primarily tobacco-related products. She added that the longer the process to put together an ordinance, the more tobacco shops will come to Vallejo.

Other commissioners suggested allowing the six tobacco shops that would be asked to move to remain, as long as they complied with set business guidelines.

The city has 11 tobacco shops now, city officials said, and two new businesses have expressed an interest in coming to Vallejo since a more than a year-long moratorium on smoke shops expired this summer.


Contact staff writer Jessica A. York at (707) 553-6834 or jyork@thnewsnet.com.

Here’s a preview of what’s in the print edition of the Thursday, Aug. 27 Leader:

• The statue of one of Hutchinson’s most historic figures could soon resume its longtime perch overlooking the Crow River. Les Kouba’s bronze likeness of Dakota Indian Chief Little Crow will be moved to it former location after spending two years in a museum, Parks and Recreation Director Dolf Moon told the City Council Tuesday night.

• Hutchinson took its first step Tuesday night toward joining a growing list of cities that prohibit tobacco use in city parks and recreation areas. By a 5-0 vote, the council directed City Administrator Gary Plotz and city staff to develop a policy that would prohibit tobacco use in city parks. In addition, the council set a public hearing on the idea for 6 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 8.

• As part of the parish’s 125th anniversary celebration, St. Anastasia Catholic Church will host its first cemetery tour at 1 p.m. Sunday. Read about the band in Extra!

• McLeod For Tomorrow is accepting applications through Aug. 31. Current and emerging leaders who live or work in McLeod County are welcome to join. Trainees last year toured area businesses, including Impressions Inc.

• In Sports, Zak Neubarth and Mackenzie Trettin have had to adjust to new surroundings this season at a new school, Gibbon-Fairfax-Winthrop.

• On the Opinion page, the leader’s editorialists explains how McLeod County continues to be a leader in recycling, but better cooperation from more townships could make recycling even easier for residents.

A London council has been criticised for investing £7m in tobacco companies as part of its pension fund portfolio.

Wandsworth Council invested £4.6m in British American Tobacco and holds £2.3m of shares in Imperial Tobacco.

In a statement the council said it was its “paramount fiduciary duty to obtain the best possible financial return on its pension fund investments”.

But critics said the council should avoid tobacco firms in the same way they would arms companies.

In 2008 the council allocated £528,000 to the NHS Stop Smoking Scheme and managed to get 1,233 people to quit, surpassing its target of 1,225 people.

This year it has increased its budget to £628,000 and hopes to get 1,256 people to stop smoking.

The council said investment decisions were taken independently.

‘Wrong strategy’

Opposition Labour Councillor Tony Belton said: “The strategy is wrong. They have a strategy to improve the health and welfare of the people of Wandsworth and investing in tobacco companies seems to be an odd way to go about it.”

Amanda Sandford, from the charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) said: “I think there is a clear inconsistency there.

“If the council have decided not to invest in arms why are they investing in tobacco or effectively propping up an industry that produces products that kill people?”

In a statement Wandsworth Council said: “These investments are managed by independent fund managers who invest in hundreds of different companies.

“They must ensure that any investments are not just in the best interests of the members, but that they also take into account social, environmental and other issues.”

David McCourt, from the National Association of Pension Funds (NAPF), said: “Trustees of pension funds have to invest on the basis of benefits.”
Copyright © 2009, 17 August Bbc

The Strickland administration will mount an appeal to a Tuesday court ruling that would prevent the state from using $230 million in smoking prevention funding to help pay for home-care services under Ohio’s latest budget.

Franklin County Common Pleas Court Judge David Fais’ decision bars the state from touching $230 million from the dissolved Ohio Tobacco Prevention Foundation. The battle over the money began in April 2008, when Gov. Ted Strickland outlined plans to use tobacco foundation money to partly finance a $1.57 billion jobs stimulus plan in the state.

With the money frozen while the legal fight played out, the state shifted the intended use of the cash to optional Medicaid services, a children’s Medicaid expansion and cancer screenings, said Strickland spokeswoman Amanda Wurst.

In the ruling, Fais wrote that two pieces of legislation backing a liquidation of the foundation and transfer of the money are unenforceable because they “clearly violate” tenets of the state Constitution. Assets in the foundation’s endowment fund are now in the state Treasury’s custody, but they’re to be used solely for tobacco prevention programs mounted by public or private agencies.

Wurst said Strickland was disappointed by the ruling and the time it took to reach a decision. The governor has asked state Attorney General Richard Cordray to speed an appeal of Fais’ ruling “to ensure these vital services continue for Ohioans.”

“Today’s ruling will delay or jeopardize the ability of these health-care services to continue to serve the people of Ohio,” Wurst said.

Fais reiterated a position he held when issuing an injunction on use of the money last February: The state had a reasonable alternative to raiding the tobacco fund for the jobs stimulus plan by issuing bonds instead.
Copyright © 2009 Bizjournals

Sibley County achieved a 92% compliance in a recent check of tobacco sales to minors. The compliance check, conducted July 13, involved Sibley County Public Health and the Sibley County Sheriff’s Office.

Twenty-four of the 26 tobacco license holders in Sibley County passed, according to Public Health. The two businesses that failed were Kenzoil Country Corner of Green Isle and Len’s Service of Gaylord, according to Tami Current, health educator at Sibley County Public Health.

Ken Schwalbe, owner of Kenzoil Country Corner, requested a hearing before Sibley County’s Board of Commissioners. The hearing was held July 28. Schwalbe, who also owns a business in Carver County, asked for forgiveness. “I have never failed a sting in Carver County,” he said. “We have been open 75 days and I feel you’re pushing it.”

“I know the law is the law but it is our first time,” Schwalbe said.

Commissioners did not take any action on Schwalbe’s request. Commissioner Bill Pinske commented that he “sympathized”, but that the County ordinance must be followed.

It was the first violation for Kenzoil Country Corner and Len’s Service.

Both businesses will have to pay a $150 fine and attend a class. The clerk is also fined $100.

Len’s Service did not request a hearing.


Copyright © 2009 Gaylordhub

Provost Umphrey attorneys Bryan Blevins and John Cowan have recently filed a class action in federal court over light cigarettes.

Earlier this month, the Southeast Texas Record reported on a lawsuit filed in Arkansas alleging that the country’s largest tobacco companies have been misleading consumers on the actual nicotine and tar content of their light cigarettes.

Blevins’ suit, which was filed July 20 in the Eastern District of Texas, mirrors the Arkansas suit and accuses Philip Morris, Altria Group and Reynolds American of deceiving consumers.

The Provost Umphrey law firm was also involved in the filing of the Arkansas suit.

The proposed class is represented by Jefferson County resident David Charles V. Hanson III, who claims the defendants misled him into believing light cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes.

According to the suit, Hanson started purchasing various brands of cigarettes in the 1950s.

He claims he first smoked regular cigarettes, but then switched to light brands “believing that Defendants’ light cigarettes delivered less tar and nicotine and were less harmful,” the complaint states.

The consumer class action will include all Texas residents who from July 20, 2005 until the end of the litigation purchased cigarettes labeled as “light” or “ultra-lights.” So far, the class includes at least 100 members seeking more than $5 million in damages.

“This consumer class action concerns Defendants’ … advertising of light cigarettes as delivering less nicotine … and being less harmful … despite Defendants knowledge that these representations were false,” the suit states.

The suit accuses the defendants of designing their light cigarettes to register lower levels of tar and nicotine during testing than the levels actually delivered to consumers.

The plaintiff argues the tobacco companies intentionally manipulated the design and content “by modifying the tobacco blend, weight, rod length, and circumference, using reconstituted tobacco sheets and expanded tobacco; and by increasing the smoke PH levels of the cigarettes through chemical processing and the use of additive such as ammonia, resulting in the delivery of great amounts of tar and nicotine.”

The suit alleges that the defendants knew that their representations that light cigarettes delivered less nicotine and were less harmful were false, deceptive, misleading and unfair.

The defendants are accused of breaching express and implied warranties, violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment.

The lawsuit requests a restitution of money paid at retail for light cigarettes, disgorgement of profits, the establishment of a constructive trust to reimburse the class for economic damages and establishment of a smoker cessation program.

Plaintiffs are seeking actual, compensatory and consequential damages, but not damages for personal injury or health care claims.

Blevins is lead attorney for the plaintiffs.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Thad Heartfield.

Case No: 1:09cv00704-TH
Copyright © 2009 Setexasrecord

SmarTrend’s proprietary algorithms detected bullish price action on shares of British American Tobacco (NYSE:BTI) which generated an Uptrend alert on April 30, 2009 at $48.51.

Since the alert, BTI has trended 15.1% higher as of today’s recent price of $55.84.

SmarTrend is actively monitoring British American Tobacco for any change in trend direction.

Write to Chip Brian at cbrian@tradethetrend.com

SmarTrend analyzes over 5,000 securities simultaneously throughout the trading day and provides its subscribers with trend change alerts in real time. To get a free trial of our trading calls and maximize your trading results, please visit http://www.TradeTheTrend.com.

Get exclusive, actionable insight into how the market is expected to trend prior to market open with our free morning newsletter. Sign up at: http://www.TradeTheTrend.com/signup.html


Copyright © 2009 Tradingmarkets

The Cancer Council says it would welcome any proposal for an increase in the price of cigarettes.

The Federal Government is currently analysing a series of recommendations aimed at reducing smoking rates put forward by the National Preventative Health Taskforce.

Newspaper reports say the yet-to-be-released recommendations suggest increasing the tax on cigarettes to more than $20 a packet and a move to plain packaging.

Cancer Council Australia chief executive Professor Ian Olver says increasing tobacco prices is the best way to reduce smoking rates.

“If you put up the price by 10 per cent per pack, you can actually drive down a country’s smoking rate by 4 per cent, which is an enormous impact on health care,” he said.

“But Australia has been lagging behind over many years in increasing that price.”

The taskforce has urged the Government to slash smoking rates over the next decade to 9 per cent.

It believes the price rise could convince 306,000 adults to quit and prevent 183,000 children from eventually taking up the habit.

Alarmed tobacco companies claim the measures could be unlawful.

Under the changes, cigarette packets would be generic and plain with larger graphic health warnings taking up about 90 per cent of the front and 100 per cent of the back.

Newspaper reports say tobacco companies also face a blanket ban on all sponsorship, internet sales, public relations activities and corporate responsibility donations.


Copyright © 2009 Abc

President Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act this week.

He says it was crafted to reduce the hazards of smoking and tobacco use. The bill allows the Food and Drug Administration to reduce nicotine levels in cigarettes and limit tobacco company advertising. Some call it an infringement of first amendment rights others are claiming a victory.

“We’ve worked on this for many, many years now and our list serves were really helpful and we really appreciated everyone who did contact our congressmen regarding this issue.”

Recent legislation has aimed at protecting children by banning tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds. According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, more than 700 children under the age of 18, become new daily smokers each year in North Dakota.

“It is a step forward for us. Because the F-D-A bill that was passed, does restrict the candy flavored products that are out there. Which are clearly marketing to our youth. So its a huge step for us.”

While the bill does grant the F-D-A power to control ingredients in cigarettes and advertising, it may be a couple of years before consumers see all the changes.
Copyright © 2009 Kxmc

Nearly a half-dozen entities, including the Association of National Advertisers, are aiming to block legislation passed last week to give the Food and Drug Administration regulatory control over the packaging, manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products.

In a lawsuit that’s also expected to include tobacco companies and the American Civil Liberties Union, the groups will argue that marketing and advertising restrictions laid out in the bill fail to comply with free-speech protections provided by the First Amendment.

Possible marketing constraints
The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control bill has been sent to the White House, where President Barack Obama is expected to sign it. The FDA would then have regulatory control over the $150 billion tobacco industry. Oversight would include restrictions on marketing and sales to youth; a ban on all outdoor tobacco advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds; a ban on all remaining tobacco-brand sponsorships of sports and entertainment events, as well as on giveaways of nontobacco products with the purchase of a tobacco product; and limiting advertising in publications with significant teen readership and outdoor and point-of-sale advertising — except in adult-only facilities — to black-and-white text only.

The ACLU sent a letter to all senators prior to last week’s vote, which read: “In the absence of a much more substantial narrowing of the advertising restrictions in a manner directly tied to the goal of reducing youth smoking, we urge the removal of the advertising restrictions set forth in Section 102 of the bill.”

The ANA sent a similar letter. Dan Jaffe, exec VP-government relations at ANA, said he expects one of the tobacco companies to take the lead. “It is likely that some of the tobacco companies will challenge some of the legalities of these restrictions and the ANA will have to decide how to go forward. But we will play a role,” Mr. Jaffe said. “This creates a substantial precedent that will affect other marketing categories.”

Back seat for ANA
The major tobacco companies, including Altria Group’s Philip Morris, R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard, have all declined to comment on whether they will file suit. Lorillard has in the past come out strongly in opposition of FDA regulation, but Philip Morris, which only stands to benefit from frozen market share that would result from such ad curbs, has been a lot less vocal on the issue.

From a political perspective, it makes sense for the ANA to take somewhat of a backseat, as its interest isn’t in protecting tobacco but preventing a such a precedent from spilling over to other less-polarizing advertisers.

Mr. Jaffe said specifically that the regulations on banning advertising within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, as well as tobacco-brand sponsorships of sports and entertainment events, “are highly likely to be found unconstitutional. The bill is supposed to curtail youth smoking. If a cultural or sporting event is provided only to adults, how can you justify the advertising restrictions? These provisions were not adequately looked at when the bill was written.”

Bill’s supporters
Not true, said Matthew L. Myers, president of the Washington-based advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, one of more than 1,000 organizations — including public-health groups, faith-based groups and such entities as the American Heart Association and the American Medical Association — that support the legislation.

“The advertising provisions were carefully crafted to address a very substantial need — the marketing of the most dangerous product sold in the U.S.,” Mr. Myers told Ad Age. “If there is any commercial speech that it is constitutional to restrict, it is the type of tobacco marketing covered by this legislation, in light of the significant record of the way the tobacco industry has marketed in a misleading way and to youths. The reality is, this bill has been debated intensely in the last two Congresses, and no objections were raised until Congress voted on final passage.”
Copyright © 2009 Adage

But the report from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, out Thursday, also carries home the message that while all states have problems, there are big variations across the U.S. For instance, the rate of illicit drug use in Iowa (5.2%) among the 12 and older set is less than half what it is in Rhode Island (12.5%).

Many of the trends are similar to past studies, according to Art Hughes, one of the report’s lead statisticians, but he cited “the adverse relationship between (perception of) risk of use and use itself” as worthy of examining at the state level.

In states where people reported having a perception of great risk about substance abuse, the problem is more often reported at lower levels than in states where risk is not as great a concern, according to the study, based on the National Surveys on Drug Use and Health. The 2006-2007 interview data is collected from 135,672 persons and is compared to the 2005-2006 data. Smoking declined from 24.96% to 24.63% with the greatest decrease among 12 to 25 year olds.

“Cigarette use continues to decline,” says Hughes. “One statistic we use to try to gauge is the (perceived) risk of smoking cigarettes. If people think it’s risky to use cigarettes, we tend to see an opposite effect happening.”

For instance, California is among the states with highest percentage of people who regard smoking as a health hazard (77.35%) and had the second lowest smoking rate (19.79%) behind Utah (17.51%). Utah’s perception of risk was slightly lower (76.93%) than California’s. Nationwide, a slight drop was recorded compared to 2005-2006 (74.14% vs 73.86%). West Virginia, on the other hand, has the highest rate of cigarette users of all states (31.10%) for people aged 12 and older and has the lowest perception of risk level associated with smoking (67.88%). Oklahoma and Tennessee, which ranked No. 2 and 3 behind West Virginia for percentages of smokers, were also among states with lowest perception of risk.

“We’re painfully aware of the problem,” said Teresa Mace, media director of West Virginia’s Office of Community Health Systems and Health Promotion. “We have a state tobacco quit line and other kinds of cessation programs that are offered to all West Virginians. We’ve gotten a lot better at getting our message to the people who need to know but it’s hard to match the amounts spent by the tobacco industry.”

Colorado is the only state showing an increase in tobacco use (from 26.5% to 29.8%) while seven states had declines: Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New York, Utah and West Virginia. The Northeast region had a decrease as well (from 28.1% to 27.1%). Overall, national rates changed only slightly (24.6%) from the 2005-2006 report (25%).

Alcohol still leads tobacco as the most commonly used substance. The perceived risk associated with binge drinking (having five or more drinks once or twice a week) also played a role in levels of drinking and binge drinking among underage drinkers. North Dakota, which ranked highest in both categories, ranked a lowly 47th among states in perception of risk.

Drinking for the group of people over the age of 12 had similar results. New Hampshire, which ranked No. 3 behind Rhode Island and Connecticut, had the lowest percentage (33.21%) of perception of risk. Rhode Island and Connecticut also ranked among the lowest 10.

“We produce this as a reference document for the states, ” says Joe Gfroerer, director of the division of population surveys. “It can lead to more in-depth analysis and discussion about whether programs within the states can help with problems.”

Rhode Island had the highest percentage of persons aged 12 or older who were needing but not receiving treatment for illicit drug use. The other states that ranked highest for needing but not receiving treatment for alcohol problems were mostly midwestern (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin) or westerm (Colorado, Montana and Wyoming.) The District of Columbia and Massachusetts are in the top 10.

Copyright 2009 Usatoday

Camel ads coupled with illustrations promoting rock music in Rolling Stone magazine violated the tobacco industry’s decade-old promise not to use cartoons to sell cigarettes to minors, a Philadelphia judge ruled Wednesday.

A spokesman for Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett said the ruling is a full victory over R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and the first decision in lawsuits filed by attorneys general in nine states that ordered monetary damages.

An R.J. Reynolds spokesman said the Winston-Salem, N.C.-based company will appeal.

Judge William J. Manfredi ordered R.J. Reynolds Tobacco to pay $302,000 or run a full-page anti-smoking ad in a Rolling Stone edition that circulates in Pennsylvania.

In his decision, Manfredi said R.J. Reynolds violated its pledge not to pitch cigarettes to children because the Rolling Stone-produced and placed illustrations were cartoons and the cigarette maker should have avoided their placement next to a Camel ad.

“Because R.J. Reynolds had the ability and the duty to avoid such indivisible commingling of its tobacco advertising and promotions with such indisputable cartoons, the advertisement must be deemed to be in violation of the Consent Decree and the Master Settlement Agreement,” Manfredi wrote.

A landmark 1998 settlement between 46 states and the tobacco industry includes a provision against using cartoons in advertisements to prevent them from appealing to minors.

In question is a Camel ad in Rolling Stone’s November 2007 edition.

The cigarette ads in Rolling Stone touted Camel’s “The Farm: Free Range Music” campaign and support for independent record labels while using photographic images of people in 1950s dress, farm animals, an old-fashioned tractor and furnishings like a phonograph against a farm backdrop. Those pages fold out to reveal a four-page illustrated spread of an “Indie Rock Universe” with animals, imaginary beings and other drawings.

R.J. Reynolds’ defense has proved more successful in other states.

Judges in Maine and Washington ruled in favor of the tobacco company. A California judge found that R.J. Reynolds violated the Master Settlement Agreement, but was not responsible for the ad placement, while an Ohio judge found the opposite, R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said.

Neither judge ordered damages, but the company is appealing both decisions, Howard said.

Suits in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and New York are still pending.

Republican Gov. Haley Barbour, a former tobacco lobbyist long opposed to raising Mississippi’s cigarette tax, has relented in the face of slumping budget revenues and signed the state’s first increase in nearly a quarter century.
Mississippi’s 18-cents-a-pack excise tax hadn’t changed since 1985 before Wednesday’s bill signing. On Friday, it goes up to 68 cents a pack.
Barbour spokesman Dan Turner said the governor declined to comment on the legislation.
The tax hike comes as Mississippi struggles with an estimated revenue shortfall of $400 million for the year that ends June 30. The cigarette tax is estimated to generate more than $113 million for the year that begins July 1.

Copyright © 2009 Wjtv

A tobacco-packed mint being test-marketed in Ohio is firing up congressional calls for tobacco industry regulation.

Joe Camel’s inventors are selling Camel Orbs in Columbus and several other test markets. Made of ground tobacco, they’re the size of small breath mints and are packaged in metal tins that look like mint containers. They dissolve in the mouth, like candy, but pack a nicotine punch.

Tobacco companies say “Orbs” and other newly introduced tobacco products are sold only to adults, contain health warnings and are designed for use in places where cigarette smoke — or the spitting associated with chewing tobacco — would be unwelcome.

“As adult tobacco needs have changed, societal expectations have changed as it relates to tobacco use,” said David Howard of R.J. Reynolds, the company that makes Camel products.

“Our goal is to continue to be at the forefront of that change.”

Tobacco foes like Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman of California say that the new products are the latest industry tactic to hook children on tobacco and that their introduction highlights the need for Food and Drug Administration regulation. They say that tobacco companies flavor the products to make them palatable to first-time users, like teenagers, and that use of mintlike products would be easier to conceal from teachers and parents.

Last month, the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill by Waxman that would give the FDA authority to regulate tobacco advertising and health claims. It would also let the FDA order product changes to protect public health. Although the FDA previously tried to regulate tobacco under existing laws, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it could not do so until Congress passed legislation to specifically give the FDA that power.

Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown predicts the measure will pass the Senate later this month because “people have had it with this practice of targeting young people to smoke.”

President Barack Obama has said he would sign it.

“Big tobacco is always one step ahead of the sheriff,” said Brown. “They are always looking for ways to get our young people addicted to tobacco. The time to pass this is now.”

Ohio GOP Sen. George Voinovich has not taken a public stance on the legislation but has supported similar measures in past years.

The nation’s top-selling tobacco company, Philip Morris, backs the bill. Its chief executive, Mike Szymanczyk, wrote Waxman a letter that called the legislation “an important step forward toward achieving the objective of providing tough but reasonable federal regulation of tobacco products.”

Rival tobacco companies oppose the bill and say it would cement Philip Morris’ No. 1 position by thwarting competitors’ efforts to introduce new products and advertise them.

R.J. Reynolds says FDA regulation of tobacco would overburden the struggling regulatory agency, wouldn’t significantly reduce tobacco-related death and disease and would complicate manufacturers’ efforts to introduce products that could reduce the risk of tobacco use.

“There are numerous studies out there that say, compared to cigarettes, smokeless tobacco products present significantly less risk,” said R.J. Reynolds’ Howard.

Anti-smoking groups like the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids say use of smokeless tobacco causes oral cancer, gum disease and nicotine addiction and boosts the risk of heart disease. Teens who start using smokeless tobacco products often graduate to cigarettes, said the group’s vice president, Dan McGoldrick. He said tobacco companies flavor the tobacco so it will appeal to youngsters.

“They have a dual danger of luring kids into the habit and keeping smokers addicted,” McGoldrick said.

Orbs are the tip of R.J. Reynolds’ pyramid of smokeless-tobacco innovations to be rolled out under the Camel brand. It will soon test-market products called Camel Sticks, dissolvable flavored toothpicklike sticks made of tobacco, and Camel Strips, flavored products that dissolve in the mouth. It has already started nationwide sales of a spit-free pasteurized chewing tobacco called “snus” (rhymes with goose). Modeled after a Scandinavian product, the tobacco comes in a teabag-style pouch. Users swallow the tobacco juice and throw away the bags when they’re done. Philip Morris is also test-marketing flavored “snus” under its Marlboro brand.

The American Lung Association of Ohio is trying to educate school nurses and public-health officials about the dangers of the new products, said its director of advocacy, Shelly Kiser. She fears the new products will catch on among teens because they’re flavored like mints, and their use is easy to hide. Although it’s illegal for minors to purchase tobacco, they get around it by having older friends make purchases for them or finding retailers who don’t adhere to the law.

“You could have that container in your hand in front of parents or teachers and they wouldn’t know it was tobacco,” Kiser said. “If you put it in your mouth, it smells minty. You could conceal its use right in front of someone.”

The Ohio Department of Health’s Tobacco Cessation program is updating its fact sheets on tobacco to reflect the new products and will post them on its Web site.

“The chief concern is that these will attract younger, underaged users who will then become addicted,” said Melanie Tidwell, who manages the program. “These certainly are easy products for youth to access. They can use them without being seen. One would have to question the motive of the tobacco industry in creating and marketing these products.”

Source: Cleveland

Cost to State of €2-per-pack price rise could have been as much as €500m in lost revenue

The Government backed away from a €2 hike in the cost of a pack of cigarettes because it would have led to a massive increase in smuggling and a loss of revenue potentially climbing from a current loss of €500m to €1bn a year, it is understood.

Tobacco industry sources say that Ireland is already losing at least €500m a year as a result of the highest cigarette prices in the EU.

The industry estimates, and the figures have not been challenged, that 20 per cent of all cigarettes smoked in Ireland are smuggled. Latest trends show that counterfeits of popular brands, manufactured illicitly in China, are flowing into the country by the container load.

A single container of these cigarettes can net the smugglers up to €1m and represent an even bigger loss in revenue to the Government.

Only Norway has higher prices, at around €10 per pack, and it is estimated that over 40 per cent of cigarettes smoked there are smuggled, creating the country’s organised crime groups.

Since the last big hike in cigarette prices, there has been a major increase in smuggling and in seizures by customs.

Figures supplied by the Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, to the Dail last month show that the value of cigarettes and tobacco seized by customs officers has more than doubled in the past three years. The value rose from €17.5m in 2006 to €25.6m in 2007 and to €54.4m in 2008.

A good deal of smuggling is what industry professionals refer to as “ant” smuggling, relatively small quantities carried in a suitcase by an individual working for a larger organisation in the illicit trade, mostly based in eastern Europe. Customs sources say they are detecting more and more individuals travelling on Ryanair flights to eastern Europe and returning with cases full of cigarettes.

They are also bringing large quantities into the country from the Canary Islands, where a carton of cigarettes costs only around €12 compared with €83 here.

Mr Lenihan confirmed the tobacco industry estimates on smuggling when he told the Dail on March 17: “While Revenue are not in a position to estimate the volume of smuggled cigarettes, they very tentatively estimate that about 20 per cent of cigarettes consumed in Ireland may be untaxed in Ireland. This, however, includes substantial quantities of legitimate personal imports from other EU member states and should be treated with caution.”

Chloe Campen, the corporate affairs manager with cigarette firm PJ Carroll, said: “We are talking about organised crime making serious profits. If criminals avoid detection, even with just one shipping container of cigarettes (holding 8.5 million cigarettes) smuggled into Ireland, they can net around €1m in profit. This is even the case if the cigarettes are in fact purchased duty paid from another country and sold within Ireland at half the normal retail price.”

“Do we think those who trade in cheap smuggled cigarettes are checking how old their customers are? I anticipate not. This illegal trade is undermining government regulations and revenues, and at the same time is damaging the livelihoods of hard working local retailers across the country,” she said.

Last year, after a 25 per cent increase in cigarette prices, the Irish Tobacco Manufacturers’ Advisory Committee called on the Government to stamp out the smuggled trade by redeploying public sector workers to support customs officers. It stated: “Ireland already has the highest cigarette price in the EU. One in five cigarettes smoked in Ireland is not bought in Ireland and this figure is on the rise . . . There is a real danger that price no longer depresses consumption, it merely displaces consumption from the regulated to the unregulated market.

Before the budge, the Irish Cancer Society, ASH (Ireland) and the Irish Heart Foundation, all called on the Government to impose a €2 increase but this was rejected. The Government has already had to contend with criticism that its VAT increase has driven trade over the Border. Mr Lenihan also told the Dail that around €700m a year was being lost to shoppers heading North.

Source: Independent

The cigarette machine and pervasive scent of stale smoke remain at the venerable Elbow Room, a reminder of times past – roughly 12 hours.

But it’s the missing ashtrays that tell the tale.

The Deep Ellum bar and others across Dallas no longer permit smoking inside since a new smoke-free workplace law took effect early Friday.

The Elbow Room’s darkened interior has built its smoky patina over almost a century, embedding it deep into wood walls. But nostalgia waxes thin on bartender Jessica Rose, who looks forward to inhaling deeply again.

“It’s nice to know I will no longer go home smelling like an ashtray,” she said Friday while slicing lemons. “The effect of secondhand smoke after 12-hour shifts takes its toll.”

She expects the staff will try to reduce the residual smoke with an intensive clean-up later in the month.

The two women she waited on said they’d waive personal choice to avoid smoky clothes and hair. Both are waitresses at Uptown bars.

But bar operators still worry that forcing smokers outside will cost them business.

Not to worry, said Kathleen Petroskey, a 21-year-old waitress at the Black Friar Pub on McKinney Avenue and a Southern Methodist University student.

“I’m from New York, and when this [kind of law] passed more than five years ago, nothing changed,” she said.

Hours earlier, and shortly before the smoking law took effect just after midnight, Black Friar patron Chris Alexander said much the same thing.

“I’ll keep going to bars in Dallas,” said Alexander, lighting up while he could. “If they say I can’t smoke inside the bar, I’ll come outside and smoke.”

Some bars promptly stopped patron smoking just after midnight, with the new ordinance technically in effect. Violators face $200 fines, and the establishments are looking at $200 for each scofflaw smoker in the place.

But as far as enforcement went, the city’s Environmental and Health Services sanitarians were waiting for complaints before acting.

“If we observed someone smoking, we’d go ahead and issue a citation to the patron and the owner,” said supervisor Chauncy Williams. “But we’re responding to complaints. We’ve only had two so far, and both of those were for restaurants, not bars.”

At Milo Butterfinger’s on SMU Boulevard at Greenville Avenue, a longtime haven for smokers, patrons kept puffing as Thursday turned to Friday.

Tom Willard, the bar’s general manager, said he posted “No Smoking” signs when he opened Friday morning.

“We ask people to go outside to the patio if they want to light up,” he said. “If they don’t want to do that, we’ll ask them to leave.”

As for the post-midnight smoking at Milo’s, he said: “Last night is history.”

A nonsmoker, he still chafed at the new law, something he sees as un-American.

“To say you can’t do something that isn’t illegal doesn’t seem right,” Willard said. “If people don’t like smoke, they don’t have to come in.

“I’ve been running this place for 29 years, and I haven’t forced anyone to come in here yet. Having said that, we’re going to follow the letter of the law.”

Mike Scheel, who runs the Amsterdam Bar near Fair Park, offered a similar shrug of acceptance.

“It was destined to happen,” he said, watching a bartender design a “Patio for your butts” sign on the chalkboard. “It’s going to suck for some people, but I may end up gaining business.”

Customers can smoke in enclosed patios, and Scheel’s bar features an expansive fenced terrace. Since the law went into effect, it’s been easy to reroute smokers outside, he said.

Ernesto Velez is not so lucky.

Velez, who owns City Cigars, had to remove the chairs his patrons used in front of his small Knox Street storefront because, under the new ordinance, smokers must remain 15 feet from an entrance.

His customers can smoke inside since he specializes in tobacco sales. But the tiny shop cannot contain the parties he sometimes hosts.

The whole point of cigars is the socializing that occurs while they’re smoked, said Velez, a native Cuban. When there’s no room, there are no customers.

“What do I do on a beautiful day like this?” he said, looking around an empty room. “Now people are going to go to Addison to outside patios where you can smoke.”

He expects to lose about 15 percent of his business.

Adair’s Saloon, a Deep Ellum institution, also lacks a patio, so Donny Ray Ford found himself smoking in front of the curb on Friday afternoon.

“No smoking in a restaurant is fine,” he said, “but anybody in a bar after 10 at night should expect smoke. It’s another example of the government saving us from ourselves. If you don’t like it, don’t come here.”

Inside Adair’s, whose walls are scribbled with signatures as well as country music photos and smoke residue, Ford’s friend, Scotty Mankoff, tugged his cowboy hat in agreement.

“The two places they should allow smoking are honky-tonks and topless bars,” said the 40-year-old Dallas photographer.

But he didn’t mosey off.

Since Adair’s is his favorite joint, he waited for Ford to come back from his cigarette break. Then he ordered another beer.

Source: Dallasnews

This paper introduced two affordability measures, based on the same price data, but
on different income data. The choice of income variable has a large impact on the
affordability measure. This requires explanation. The paper has other limitations.
Price data represent cigarettes prices in major cities and may not properly reflect
average prices throughout the country. Also, since the price data focuses on a single,
albeit popular, brand, this may not represent average cigarette prices, even in the city
surveyed. Both income measures suffer from shortcomings. Although GDP is a broad
measure of income, it does not take the distribution of income into account. The UBS
earnings data focuses on a narrow group of occupations. Furthermore, because of data
constraints the sample is somewhat biased towards high-income countries and underrepresents
low- and middle-income countries.
The explanation for the differences in the affordability measures rests on the
representativeness of the income data. GDP measures total output (and thus income)
of a country. While there are criticisms against GDP as a measure of income, it is
designed to be the most encompassing and broadest measure of economic activity in a
country.
The UBS Survey of earnings is not designed to be representative of earnings in the
country as a whole. Within a particular country, it focuses only on a small number of
cities, usually the commercial centres. Earnings in commercial centres are typically
higher than in other cities, and urban earnings are typically higher than rural earnings,
especially in low- and middle-income countries. Even though the UBS aims to survey
earnings among a representative cross-section of occupations, most occupations
surveyed require training; unskilled occupations are not included in the Survey. The
UBS surveys only formal sector employers. Wages in the informal sector are typically
much lower than in the formal sector. Also, the UBS considers only employed
persons. Unemployed persons do not feature in the UBS survey at all. Lastly, the UBS
does not take into consideration the average size of the family that depends on the
wage of the breadwinner.
In terms of these five issues, low- and middle-income countries differ notably from
high-income countries. In low- and middle-income countries the urban/rural wage
differential is larger, the unemployment rate is higher, the labour participation rate

(especially among women) is lower, the average number of dependents is higher,
and the proportion of people working in low-wage menial jobs and the informal sector
is higher than in high-income countries. All these factors suggest that the UBS
survey incorporates only a small portion of the labour market in low- and middleincome
countries.
The high correlation between the affordability measures for high-income countries, as
presented in Table 1, suggests that the choice of income (at least between per capita
GDP and the UBS earnings survey) does not matter much for these countries. This is
not the case for low- and middle-income countries, where the correlation coefficients
are much lower.
For low- and middle-income countries, cigarettes are more affordable if one uses UBS
earnings and less affordable if one uses per capita GDP as income proxies. The UBS’s
choice of occupations is representative of the occupational distribution in high-income
countries, but represents only the top-end of occupations in low- and middle-income
countries. In contrast, per capita GDP accounts for the whole income distribution,
including unskilled, poorly remunerated and subsistence workers. Given that the UBS
survey covers a small (typically unrepresentative) portion of the labour market in lowand
middle-income countries, we recommend caution in the interpretation of
affordability measures based on UBS survey data for low- and middle-income
countries.
Considering changes in cigarette affordability since 1990, there is a wide divergence
between high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries. Cigarettes
have generally become somewhat less affordable in most high-income countries since
1990 suggesting that, at least at an aggregated level, these countries are actively trying
to discourage smoking through fiscal and possible other means. It is also possible
that tobacco companies have increased the retail price by increasing the real net-of-tax
price, as has happened, amongst others, in Jamaica, South Africa, and the US.
Cigarettes have become more affordable in many low- and middle-income countries
since 1990, and this increase in affordability has accelerated since 2003. In many
large, populous Asian countries, particularly China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and
Vietnam, cigarettes have become more affordable at a rate of 5% or more each year.
Tobacco control victories are reported on a daily basis, for example, countries
ratifying the FCTC, legislation successfully passed or implemented, and research
indicating popular support for tobacco control interventions. While this is positive, the
paper suggests that the single most important tool, i.e. decreasing the affordability of
cigarettes by raising the excise tax, has been neglected.
Many countries have experienced unprecedented economic growth in the past decade
or two. While this creates great opportunities (e.g. reducing poverty and increasing
people’s standard of living), it creates tobacco control challenges as well. The
Spearman correlation between the average growth rate for the period 1990 to 2006
and the average growth in the RIP over the same period is -0.27 (n=77, P<0.02),

indicating that countries which experience rapid economic growth tend to find that
cigarettes become more affordable. However, many countries which have experienced
rapid economic growth have also experienced decreases in the real price of cigarettes,
exacerbating the increased affordability of cigarettes.
This paper argues that rapidly growing countries face tobacco control challenges that
slower-growing countries do not face. To the extent that tobacco control is a priority
area for government and policy makers, tobacco prices and taxes should be adjusted
against some standard of affordability, not only against a standard of real price or tax.
For example, the comment “Tax rates should be increased so that the prices of all
tobacco products increase by at least 5% in real terms every year”, which has been
ascribed to the WHO and the World Bank22 focuses on price, not affordability. For
most countries, and especially those where the real price of cigarettes has decreased
over time, it is a useful target. However, for rapidly growing countries it may be
inappropriate, since even though the real price may be increasing at a rate of 5%,
cigarettes are still more affordable. Perhaps a more useful and more general comment
would be “Tax (or price) should be increased such that cigarettes become increasingly
less affordable.” This recommendation implies that the nominal price of cigarettes
should increase by at least the growth in nominal per capita GDP (i.e. the sum of the
inflation rate, the real per capita GDP growth rate and a small interaction effect).

A limited number of published studies have explicitly investigated cigarette
affordability. Scollo and Lal and Scollo compared the price of cigarettes to that of a
Big Mac hamburger. Between 1995 and 2002 cigarettes became relatively more
expensive than Big Mac hamburgers in of the (high-income) countries included
in the two surveys. Since these studies used the price of the Big Mac hamburger,
rather than income, as the reference point, they did not investigate affordability per se,
but rather the price of cigarettes relative to an internationally standardised product.
Guindon et al used earnings of twelve occupations, monitored by the Union Bank of
Switzerland’s (UBS) survey of earnings, to calculate the average number of working
minutes required to purchase a pack of local brand or Marlboro (or equivalent)
cigarettes. Between 1990 and 2000 cigarettes became more affordable in six of the
(24%) developed countries and in four of the  (36%) low- and middle-income
countries in the sample. For a majority of countries cigarettes became less affordable.
Also using the UBS earnings data, but considering seven occupations with the
lowest earnings, Kan investigated cigarette affordability in cities in 2006, and
found that cigarettes remained highly affordable in most cities surveyed. She warned
that cigarettes would become increasingly affordable in fast-growing emerging
economies if cigarette prices do not keep pace with economic growth.

Blecher and Van Walbeek9 considered a sample of high-income and low- and
middle-income countries, and defined affordability in terms of per capita GDP.
Despite being more expensive, cigarettes were generally more affordable in highincome
countries. During the 1990s cigarettes became more affordable in 39% of the
high-income countries considered and less affordable in the remaining 61%. Among
low- and middle-income countries cigarettes became more affordable in 57% and less
affordable in 43% of countries.