BOSTON — Six years after Massachusetts passed a ban on smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants because of public health concerns, Senate leaders are backing a gambling bill that would allow smoking in new casinos proposed for the state.

The proposal is drawing criticism from antismoking advocates, who say the proposed legislation would put casino patrons and workers at a health risk, while also upending the ban on smoking in restaurants, bars and workplaces.

Under legislation briefly debated Wednesday, the state would license three casinos and allow smoking in up to 25 percent of their gaming areas. The bill also requires signs marking the smoking areas and “appropriate ventilation so as to minimize the effect of the smoke on the nondesignated areas.”

Advocates say banning smoking would drive gamblers to other states where casino smoking is allowed.

“The marketing study has shown without smoking, it would dramatically affect your revenues and the amount people play,” said a casino supporter, Sen. Steven Pangiatakos. The Lowell Democrat noted casinos in Connecticut allow smoking.

Sen. Richard Tisei of Wakefield said he supports allowing smoking sections in casinos. Tisei, the Republican leader in the Senate, said he had opposed the statewide workplace smoking ban.

“Anybody who’s ever been to a casino knows that smoking takes place in a casino,” said Tisei, a smoker. “If gambling’s a vice, smoking’s a vice, so why are you going to allow gambling but not smoking?”

Russet Morrow Breslau, executive director of the antismoking advocacy group Tobacco Free Mass, said Massachusetts could become the first state allowing casinos to offer smoking after passing a statewide ban.

“This is step backwards in terms of protecting the rights of patrons and workers,” she said. “Casino workers will be exposed for an entire shift to carcinogens.”

The Massachusetts law passed in 2004 made exceptions for private clubs and cigar bars.

Morrow Breslau said if casinos are allowed to offer smoking, they may even lose more customers than they gain because many people prefer nonsmoking environments.

Mark Hymovitz, the director of government relations and advocacy for the American Cancer Society, said smoking in casinos would force casino workers to choose “between their jobs and their health.”

Local businesses in communities with casinos also will face unfair competition if casinos can offer smoking, Hymovitz said.

“Allowing smoking would create an uneven playing field,” he said.

One proposed casino site is in the western Massachusetts community of Palmer.

“I personally do not want second-hand smoke in casinos, but if legislators feel it will bring revenues into three gaming facilities, the legislators have thought it out clearly,” said Robert Young, spokesman for Palmer Businesses for a Palmer Casino.

A study commissioned by the Senate to look at the potential revenues from casinos in Massachusetts said the three slot machine parlors in Delaware lost more than 11 percent in revenue in 2003 after the state banned smoking. The report also noted that in the years following the ban, revenues rebounded to pre-ban levels.

The report concluded that “smoking policies must be competitive with nearby regional competition.” Connecticut’s two casinos, which are both owned by Indian tribes, allow smoking and have resisted efforts by the state to ban the practice.

Sen. Susan Tucker, D-Andover, a leading casino opponent, is supporting amendments to ban smoking from the casinos. She said allowing smoking in casinos is an “indefensible policy” and predicted an amendment to ban smoking would pass. However, Tucker said she does not believe the smoking ban will last long.

“If smoking helps (casinos) make money, there will be smoking,” she said.

Atlantic City banned smoking in the city’s 11 casinos in 2008, but repealed the ban a month after it went into effect because of complaints by casinos.

A law aimed at educating smokers that “light” or “mild” cigarettes are no less addictive goes into effect today, forcing tobacco companies to drop those terms on packaging and to market packs using color or other codes.

After the Food and Drug Administration gained the power to regulate the tobacco industry last year, one of its first acts was to change the way cigarettes can be advertised and sold. Manufacturers may distribute any leftover packs bearing the banned terms through July 21, but they can’t print new ones.

Dropping labels that make smokers believe their choice is less harmful is a positive move, said Dr. Roger Zoorob, chair of Meharry Medical College’s Family and Community Medicine, but it won’t help current smokers overcome their addiction. He runs a smoking cessation clinic.

“I’m in favor of this law. … There is no such thing as good or light tobacco,” Zoorob said. “It’s about nicotine. It’s harmful and addictive.”

Tobacco products, including cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, are responsible for approximately 443,000 deaths and $193 billion in medical expenditures and lost productivity each year in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration says. In 2007, Tennessee ranked fifth in the nation for its smoking rate.

Nashville smoker Mike Leonard said he knows light cigarettes aren’t any less addictive. He had quit smoking for seven years — until he tried a light cigarette six months ago. Now he’s buying the cheapest brands available that promote the cigarettes’ taste as light or “low tar.”

“The craving was so strong that I got started again,” he said.

Smokers do believe in the “light” nicotine mythology, said University of Pittsburgh professor Saul Shiffman, a smoking cessation expert and consultant. Forty percent of smokers polled in a recent survey think that a light cigarette is less harmful, he said.

“This (law) is the first step for smokers to realize that lights are not a refuge,” Shiffman said. “I think this will have an impact over time.”

Free samples restricted

But Mary Harper of Nash ville, who smokes Carlton cigarettes, said people will continue smoking because the activity has little to do with wording on a package.

“If people have the mindset to smoke, they will,” she said.

“Mine already tastes light. When people bum off me, they tell me it’s like smoking air. People won’t stop smoking because of the words … only if it gets too expensive.”

Tennessee passed a 40-cents-a-pack tax increase on cigarettes in 2007 and saw an immediate drop in the smoking rate, but only by 1 percentage point.

John Chiaramonte, the American Cancer Society’s governmental relations director for Tennessee, said the best anti-smoking measures keep people from ever getting addicted.

“The marketing has been an issue for a long time,” he said.

Experts say it will take some time to see whether the new marketing regulations, part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, have an impact.

Other aspects of the law include:

• Prohibiting distribution of free samples of cigarettes and restricting free samples of smokeless tobacco products.

• Ending tobacco company sponsorship of athletic, musical or other social events.

• Banning sale of tobacco products in vending machines except in limited adult-only venues.

By Chris Echegaray
THE TENNESSEAN, June 22, 2010

Diversified conglomerate ITC is looking to enhance its position in the Indian premium cigarettes market, with plans to launch the iconic global brand ‘Lucky Strike’ this week.

According to industry sources, Lucky Strike, the original American brand that was launched way back in 1871, will make its formal India debut this week.

“The brand will be initially launched in the Delhi, Mumbai and Pune markets and will be available in select cigarette-selling retail outlets, premium hotels, restaurants and clubs,” a source said.

Popularly known as the ‘Luckies’, it will be competing with Marlboro, from the stable of Philip Morris, which is sold in India by Godfrey Philips India Ltd.

ITC officials were not available for comment.

With the launch of Lucky Strike, ITC will be enhancing its presence in the premium segment, in which it already sells brands like Insignia and Benson & Hedges.

Sources said a pack of 20 cigarettes of Lucky Strike will be priced at Rs 110 and will take on Marlboro, which costs Rs 98 for a 20-cigarette pack.

“Lucky Strike cigarettes will be launched in India in two variants — ‘Gold’ and ‘Red’,” the source said.

Lucky Strike is a leading international brand and is available in 47 countries. In India, ITC will own the trademark and will be the exclusive manufacturer and marketer.

ITC’s other cigarette brands include India Kings, Classic, Gold Flake, Silk Cut, Navy Cut, Scissors, Capstan, Berkeley, Bristol and Flake.

The diversified group had registered sales of Rs 9,321 crore from its cigarettes business in the fiscal ended March 31, 2010. As per industry estimates, ITC commands around 80 per cent of the organised cigarettes market in India.

WASHINGTON — A group of Republican and Democratic lawmakers has joined a U.S. tobacco industry battle with the Harper government over accusations Ottawa is seeking a global ban on American-style blended cigarettes.

The fight, which was triggered last year by Canada’s new anti-smoking legislation, has escalated amid claims Health Canada is now pursuing international restrictions on flavouring ingredients that remove the harsh taste of burley tobacco in Marlboro and other popular U.S. brands.

The conflict features tobacco industry charges of Canadian “duplicity” and claims that “rogue” bureaucrats have a hidden agenda to eliminate American-style cigarettes from the global market.

Health Canada, meantime, contends Canada’s goal is simply to bar cigarettes with flavours — such as vanilla, licorice and chocolate — added to appeal to youth.

In the past month, seven members of Congress from districts in Kentucky, Virginia and Indiana have written to Prime Minister Stephen Harper asking him to intervene. Specifically, they fear Ottawa is using Canada’s restrictions as a model for new prohibitions being considered for the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.

“We believe Canada’s approach has gone too far,” Indiana congressmen Baron Hill and Brad Ellsworth wrote in a Feb. 4 letter to Harper. “If your government pushes these provisions through the FCTC process, the result could devastate the burley farmers in our state.”

The dispute with Canada began with Parliament’s passage of the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act, which prohibits the addition of flavours designed to market cigarettes and little cigars to children and youth.

The bill bans a variety of candy and fruit-flavoured tobacco products with flavours like tropical passion, cherry or chocolate.

But U.S. lawmakers and producers of several American-style brands — including Marlboro, Camel and Winston — said the Canadian law also sideswipes cigarettes blended with burley, a harsh-tasting air-cured tobacco.

They contend “mild” flavourings added to those brands mitigate the naturally sharp taste of burley, without adding any of the flavour’s characteristics to the cigarette itself.

Canada’s legislation is “so broad that it bans traditional blended products containing burley tobacco, even though they taste like tobacco, and not like the confectionary or fruit flavours which could be marketed to young people,” Representative Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican, wrote in a separate Jan. 25 letter to Harper.

Philip Morris International, one of the world’s largest tobacco companies, has been heavily involved in organizing opposition in Congress to the Canadian law.

A bigger concern for the cigarette makers, however, are draft guidelines for the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control that were circulated at a meeting in Amman, Jordan last October.

Canadian officials were among the “key facilitators” for a working group that proposed nations “prohibit or restrict the use of flavouring substances” in cigarettes.

“From the perspective of public health, there is no justification for permitting the use of ingredients, such as flavouring agents, which help make tobacco products attractive,” according to a copy of the draft guidelines.

Health Canada spokesman Philippe Laroche said Canada was one of 24 countries involved in the WHO working group. The draft guidelines “are not modeled after any one country’s particular approach” to tobacco control, he said.

But Kentucky farmer Roger Quarles, president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Co-operative Association, called Health Canada “a rogue government agency” that is being “less than forthcoming” about its actions.

“Health Canada is once again showing duplicity on the issue of banning blended cigarettes that contain burley tobacco,” said Quarles.

“The fact is Health Canada’s efforts, if successful, will wipe out an entire category of legitimate tobacco products under the guise of a candy-flavored ingredients ban.”

Quarles said the better approach is a more limited ban on ingredients with “characterizing flavours” that make cigarettes taste more like candy than tobacco. The U.S. Congress passed legislation along those lines last year.

“Canada could have followed this responsible model, but Health Canada has a larger agenda and that is to take American-style cigarettes off the market,” Quarles said.

In a response to questions about the Canadian legislation first posed last October, Health Canada said U.S. manufacturers “may be required to reformulate” their cigarettes to continue selling them in Canada.

Some of the ingredients known to be used in American-style blended cigarettes include vanilla, honey, chocolate, coconut and maple, Laroche said.

The addition of those flavours make the cigarettes “more appealing to youth and this is exactly the kind of tobacco industry marketing tactic that we want to prevent in order to protect our vulnerable youth,” he said.

While American-style cigarettes represent less than one per cent of the market in Canada — where milder flue-cured tobacco is favoured among smokers — but they are dominant in other places around the globe.

About 80 per cent of the U.S. burley crop is exported.
By Sheldon Alberts, Canwest News Service

KT&G Corp., South Korea’s biggest tobacco company, climbed the most in more than seven months after Goldman Sachs Group Inc. upgraded the stock to “buy” on its contract to sell Davidoff cigarettes in the nation.

KT&G advanced 4.5 percent to 67,200 won at the close on the Korea Exchange, the most since June 9. The benchmark Kospi stock index fell 0.7 percent. Goldman Sachs raised the stock’s rating from “neutral” and lifted its price estimate to 76,000 won from 75,000 won in a report today.

The licensing agreement to make and sell Imperial Tobacco Group Plc’s Davidoff cigarettes will help KT&G stem the drop in its market share and maintain its lead in the South Korean industry. Production will start in the first half, the Daejeon, South Korea-based company said yesterday.

“Given KT&G’s continued domestic market share loss over the past several years which mainly resulted from its weak presence in the faster-growing premium segment, we believe the launch of Davidoff will help KT&G to defend its domestic market share at 60.9 percent in 2011,” wrote Goldman Sachs analysts including Paul Hwang. KT&G had 62.3 percent of the market as of 2009, Goldman Sachs said.

The tobacco maker said last week fourth-quarter profit declined 38 percent as domestic sales fell amid intensifying competition from imported brands. Net income was 137.9 billion won ($118 million) in the three months ended December, compared with 223.3 billion won a year earlier, it said.

“Given the fast changing trend in tobacco market, it’s difficult to predict the sales volume of Davidoff and targeted market share,” KT&G said in an e-mailed statement in response to a query.

The stock has lost 20 percent over the past year, compared with a 49 percent gain in the Kospi index for the same period.
By Saeromi Shin

Finland made international headlines recently with news that its government plans to completely eradicate smoking – not just a ban on smoking in public places, that already exists, but the total and final eradication of smoking amongst the Finnish population. It’s a lofty goal to be sure, and has reignited the smoking debate in other European countries, many of which have banned smoking in cafes, pubs and restaurants. The Czech Republic, however, like most former communist states, seems to be trailing behind.

round a quarter of all Czechs – 2.5 million people – are smokers, addicted to a drug that will eventually kill one in five of them at huge expense to the state. Many, of course, want to give up. Those that do often find themselves at the Tobacco Dependence Treatment Centre in Prague.

The director of the centre is Dr Eva Králíková, one of the country’s most vocal anti-smoking campaigners. She’s particularly concerned about the effects of passive smoking, and is disappointed that new legislation due to enter into force in July falls short of a total ban on smoking in pubs, cafes and restaurants. She says even the law’s provision that non-smoking areas must be separated with a wall does not go far enough.

“Unfortunately you have to open a door to go there, and of course the air will be mixed. It’s similar to a swimming pool where you can piss in one corner and then suggest the rest of the water is clean. Only a 100% smoke-free environment is safe.”

Smoking is already banned on trains, trams and buses, and is increasingly rare in the workplace. But pubs, restaurants and cafes are still overwhelmingly smoker-friendly. From July 1st they’ll be obliged to put a sticker on the door to say whether the establishment is smoking, non-smoking or mixed with a separate smoke-free room. Analysts predict that most will choose the first option, in a bid not to lose customers.

But for many Czechs attempts to eradicate smoking is part of a crusade by interfering busy-bodies, egged on by health fascists in Brussels. Senator Jaroslav Kubera, a heavy smoker with a deep belief in personal freedom, told Czech Radio recently he didn’t like the way things were going.

“The fact of the matter is that non-smokers aren’t looking after themselves, they’re just aggressively attacking those who smoke. All these regulations are ridiculous. They’ll be banning certain kinds of food next. States are interfering in people’s lives in more and more ways. George Orwell was spot on when he described the future in 1984 – believe me, it’s getting closer.”

Jaroslav KuberaJaroslav Kubera Anti-smoking campaigners suspect the powerful tobacco industry is behind the failed attempts to introduce a total smoking ban. A leading Czech newspaper claimed recently that representatives of three international cigarette companies actually work as assistants to MPs. As long as the tobacco industry enjoys unfettered access to lawmakers, say the anti-smoking campaigners, a Finnish-style crackdown on smoking is simply out of the question.

By Rob Cameron
21 Jan. 2010

A federal judge in Kentucky ruled that a new federal law giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration jurisdiction over tobacco can’t prevent companies from using color and graphics to advertise their products.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. ruled that provisions of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, signed into law by President Obama in June, violate the free-speech rights of advertisers.

McKinley, whose court is in Bowling Green, agreed with Reynolds American Inc.’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and other companies that challenged the law, “that images of packages of their products, simple brand symbols, and some uses of color communicate important commercial information about their products.”

McKinley, whose opinion was released publicly today, also blocked a provision barring statements that tobacco products are less harmful because they are regulated by the FDA or comply with agency requirements. The judge declined cigarette makers’ request to strike down other provisions in the law.

Biggest Issue

“We are certainly pleased with the judge’s decision in finding that certain provisions of the law are unconstitutional, including what we believe was one of the biggest issues in the case — use of color and imagery in our advertising,” R.J. Reynolds spokesman David Howard said in an e-mailed statement.

Howard said the company continues to believe the other challenged provisions of the law are unconstitutional and is considering its options.

“FDA is pleased this ruling will allow us to continue, in large part, with the implementation of the tobacco control act to protect public health,” agency spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said in an e-mailed statement today. “The agency will thoroughly review the opinion rendered by the judge.”

Anti-smoking groups, including the Campaign for Tobacco- Free Kids, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association, issued a statement in which they hailed the decision for upholding most aspects of the law.

The groups disagreed with McKinley’s ruling that the bans on color and graphics and on statements implying greater safety because of FDA regulation are unconstitutional. The groups urged the government to appeal those parts of the ruling.

Adult Smokers

Reynolds, the second-largest U.S. cigarette maker, and third-biggest Lorillard Tobacco Co. sued in August to block the marketing restrictions. They claim the law goes far beyond discouraging kids from smoking and leaves them “virtually no means” to communicate with adult smokers and other tobacco users.

“We are gratified that the court upheld our free speech rights to use color and graphics in our advertising to communicate with our adult consumers,” Lorillard spokesman Michael Robinson said in an e-mailed statement.

Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris USA, which makes half of the cigarettes sold in the U.S., supported FDA regulation and endorsed the law. It is not involved in the suit.

In the ruling, McKinley upheld provisions in the law barring tobacco-related merchandise, such as caps and t-shirts, banning sponsorship of concerts and sporting events and requiring that ads and packages carry new safety warnings.

The case is: Commonwealth Brands Inc. v. U.S., 09-Civ.-117, U.S. District Court, Western District of Kentucky (Bowling Green).

VANCOUVER, B.C. — Ottawa has been drawn back into a massive health-care recovery lawsuit after the B.C. Court of Appeal ruled it may share blame with tobacco companies for smoking-related health costs.

The decision handed down Tuesday only gives the tobacco companies a very narrow opening to have the federal government share financial responsibility.

But it sets a precedent for similar cases proceeding in provincial lawsuits underway in Newfoundland, Quebec and New Brunswick, where big tobacco is also seeking to involve the government.

In March 2008, the companies petitioned the British Columbia Supreme Court to add Ottawa as a third party defendant.

They argued that Ottawa should be liable right along with them if they are legally compelled to repay health-care costs to the province for smoking-related illness.

The B.C. Supreme Court ruled against them, but on Tuesday three of five appeal court justices allowed the appeal “in part.”

The court ruled that Ottawa may now be held liable when the case goes to trial in September 2011.

At issue will be the federal government’s role in designing some tobacco strains, as well as its conduct around warning consumers of tobacco risks.

A spokesman for Imperial Tobacco Canada, one of the companies named in the suit, said on Tuesday the company is pleased with the ruling. Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and JTI-MacDonald are among other groups named.

Donald McCarty said the ruling will open the door for the record to be set straight about Ottawa’s role as a “senior partner” in the tobacco industry.

“The B.C. decision will demonstrate that the Government of Canada has known about the risks associated with smoking for decades and that it instigated and promoted the development and sale of lower-tar tobacco products,” he said in a statement.

“It is only right that the Government of Canada stand next to the tobacco industry in these cases and be accountable for its role in the history of tobacco control strategy.”

A spokesman for the federal government could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Questions to the federal Department of Justice were referred to the agriculture and health departments. The B.C. government also declined to comment while the case continues before the courts.

Health advocates took a different view of the ruling

A preferable outcome would have been having Ottawa removed from the case altogether, said Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst with the Canadian Cancer Society.

“But the most important thing, in our view, is we get this case to trial,” he said from Ottawa. “We need this trial to happen.”

B.C. was the first province to launch legal action against tobacco companies, filing suit in 2001 to recover billions of dollars spent through the health-care system on treating smoking-related disease.

Other provinces watched closely and six – Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan – have now passed or are in the process of passing legislation that will pave the way for suits meant to recoup costs.

The B.C. Court of Appeal also ruled Tuesday that Ottawa similarly may share blame as a third party in a separate but related class-action suit against tobacco companies seeking to recover money spent by smokers on cigarettes deemed “light” and “mild.”

Afew years ago, Adinkerke was a forgotten, dilapidated village of red-brick houses, just inside the Belgian border with France. In the past four years, however, it has been transformed into a glittering mini-Las Vegas: a village full of garish signs reading “Smokey River”, “Eurobaccy”, “Tobacco Alley”, “Smugglers’ Corner”, and “Coronation Street Tobacco Shop”.

The village stands less than a mile from the long ribbon of dunes and beaches, stretching north of Dunkirk, from which the British Army was evacuated 69 years ago. The opening this month of yet another tobacco shop in the village – a garish cigarette supermarket called Real Tobacco XL – has ignited a new Battle of Dunkirk: a potentially noxious legal row between France and Belgium over the rights of EU citizens to dodge national anti-smoking policies by crossing European borders to buy cheap fags.

The owners of Real Tobacco XL, and four other emporiums along the Franco-Belgian border, flooded northern France earlier this month with advertising flyers for their new shop. They sent a loudspeaker car, towing an advertising trailer, through the streets of Dunkirk promoting the fact that cigarettes were at least €1 a packet cheaper 10 miles away in Adinkerke. The French tobacconists’ association pounced. They had been able to do nothing, under EU law, about the cheap cigarette shops in Belgium. But they could bring a legal action against the Belgian firm for breaking an 18-year-old law which bans all forms of tobacco advertising in France.

“For three or four years, we have had to watch them [the Belgians] opening more shops selling cheap cigarettes, and we could do nothing,” said Patrick Falewee, president of the Dunkirk area tobacco trade association. “Over there they have no system of tobacco licensing, anyone can start a tobacco shop. You just buy an abandoned house in a border village and you start selling cigarettes. Now, at last, we can fight back. They have broken the French law against advertising tobacco and we are going to make sure that they are punished for it. We are going to pursue this case to the end.”

This is much more than a local quarrel. At one time, France took a relaxed view of smoking, partly because tobacco was a lucrative state monopoly. In the past decade, however, successive French governments have adopted a more health-conscious approach and have imposed a series of steep tax increases on tobacco. The 6 per cent tax increase earlier this month has increased the price of a packet of 20 Marlboros – the most popular brand in France – to €5.60 (£5.10). This is about £1 a packet cheaper than in Britain. It is about €1 (90p) a packet more than in Belgium and at least €2 a packet more than in other EU nations, such as Spain, Italy and Luxembourg.

Earlier this year, the British American Tobacco company estimated that more than one in five of all cigarettes smoked in France was bought abroad. Much the same problem exists in Germany, which has very cheap tobacco neighbours in Poland and the Czech Republic. There is a growing trade in smuggled cigarettes in Europe and an equally illegal growth of sales over the internet. But many French and German smokers have discovered the pleasures of perfectly legal, or almost legal, cigarette tourism.

“They come to the shops in Belgium, not just from Dunkirk and Lille but from as far south as Paris and Rouen,” Mr Falewee said. “Legally under EU law they are allowed only five cartons of 200 cigarettes each per car. Of course, they often buy far, far more than that. The Belgian shops do nothing to limit their purchases.”

Over the border in Adinkerke, the Real Tobacco XL supermarket is doing a brisk trade. The shop is at least 50 yards long and 25 yards wide – about quarter of the size of a football pitch – and also sells chocolate and a small selection of drinks. But cigarettes and rolling tobacco are its stock-in-trade. If you don’t mind rolling your own, you can buy a large drum of Louxor tobacco – enough to make 1,200 cigarettes – for €48.55.

Serge, the manager of the shop, declined to talk about the rights and wrongs of the legal case brought by the tobacconists’ association across the border. “The French are making a big hoo-ha about our shops here but the real price difference is not between France and Belgium but between here and Britain. Eighty per cent of our customers here are not French but British,” he said. Was he suggesting that the French were being a little hypocritical? That Calais had been making a living for years from the thirst of Britons for cheap, low-tax booze and the cross-Channel hunger for lower-tax tobacco? Yet, now that the cigarette tax pattern had started to favour Belgium, they were complaining.

Serge grinned and turned to serve another customer. “You are saying that, not me,” he said. Hélène Marcuzzo, 32, from Dunkirk, was loading up her car with cigarettes for herself and chocolate for her two children. “I can buy 200 cigarettes for €46 here, compared with nearly €60 in France,” she said. “I never buy cigarettes at home any more, except in an emergencies. I understand why the French shops are upset,” she went on, “but what about the poor French smoker? They keep putting the taxes up and up. What are we supposed to do?” Give up smoking, maybe? Ms Marcuzzo looked appalled. “Oh, no, no, no, no,” she said. “No, no, no, no.”

Mr Falewee of the Dunkirk tobacconists’ association has another solution to suggest. “It’s very simple,” he said. “We need a proper European health policy, which would harmonise all cigarette taxes in the European Union. As things stand, there is no point in trying to discourage people from killing themselves by raising taxes because they will just clear off somewhere else to buy their cigarettes.”

The European Commission has already tentatively suggested something similar. With taxes on 20 cigarettes currently ranging from the equivalent of 82p in Bulgaria to £4.62 a packet in Ireland, the EU would need a king-size harmonisation. This could be a first test for the ingenuity of the European Union’s answer to Hercule Poirot, the new Belgian President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy.

Contraband cigarettes EU and beyond

*The dramatic differentials in cigarette prices, not merely among EU countries but also between the EU and some countries outside it, have provided money-making opportunities to many others besides the enterprising tobacconists of Dunkirk.

*Since joining the EU in 2004, Poland has been steadily hiking tobacco duty to meet EU targets. As a result, cigarettes are frequently smuggled into Poland from bordering Ukraine, where tobacco is much cheaper.

*In the former Yugoslav republics, the yawning gap between local and EU cigarette prices has prompted the growth of a lucrative smuggling trade across the Adriatic. This, it is claimed, has hugely enriched some of the local post-Communist elites. Milo Djukanovic, the Prime Minister of Montenegro, is fighting Italian accusations that he himself is involved in the trade.

*A study earlier this year estimated that 657bn black market cigarettes are sold across the world annually, costing governments nearly £25bn in lost revenue. And the charity Cancer Research estimates that if the smuggling of cheap tobacco into the UK was eliminated, in the long term 4,000 deaths a year could be prevented.

30 November 2009, Independent

Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama recently told the Diet that an increase in the tobacco tax should be considered from the viewpoint of improving people’s health. He has instructed the government’s Tax System Council to study the matter. A tobacco tax increase is long overdue; we hope Mr. Hatoyama’s effort will succeed.

The World Health Organization says, “Tobacco is the single largest preventable cause of cancer in the world today. It causes 80 to 90 percent of all lung cancer deaths, and nearly one-third of all cancer deaths in developing countries.” Smoking not only accounts for about one-third of all cancer cases but also increases the incidence of heart diseases and cerebral infarction.

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, effective February 2005, calls on its 164 signatories to raise taxes on tobacco products as a way of reducing tobacco consumption.

Cigarettes in Japan are much cheaper than in other parts of the developed world. For example, Japan imposes a tobacco tax of ¥174 on a 20-cigarette pack, compared with an equivalent tax of ¥400 to ¥500 imposed in Europe and North America.

Every year since 2006 the health ministry has proposed raising the tobacco tax. But the Liberal Democratic Party’s Research Commission on the Tax System quashed the proposal because it feared that an increase would be unpopular with voters and negatively impact tax revenue. The change in government, however, has breathed new life into the drive to increase the tax.

A health ministry survey shows that 36.8 percent of men and 9.1 percent of women regularly smoked in 2008. The rate for men was the lowest since the survey began in 1981. In five years, the overall rate went down by 5.9 points to 21.8 percent, while the rate for men dipped 10 points. In addition, of those surveyed, 28.5 percent of male smokers and 37.4 percent of female smokers indicated that they want to quit smoking.

A steep cigarette tax hike would induce many to quit smoking. The revenue should be used to promote measures to help smokers kick the habit, improve medical services and assist those among the nation’s 12,000 tobacco farmers who would like to switch crops. The government could also discourage use of tobacco by banning smoking in public places nationwide, including restaurants.

Lagos — A Lagos High Court has dismissed three applications seeking to strike out the names of International Tobacco Company Limited, British American Tobacco Plc and British American Tobacco (investment) Limited from the $21 billion suit instituted by the Lagos State Government and Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria (ERA/FoEN).

Ruling on the Notice of Preliminary Objection brought by the three defendants pursuant to Order 3 Rule 9 and Order 6 Rule 10 of the Lagos State [Civil Procedure] Rules 2004 and Section 98 and 99 of the Sheriffs and Civil Process Act. Cap 56, 2004, the trial judge, Justice Bukola Raliatu Adebiyi, held that the three tobacco companies are necessary parties to the suit and that their presence would be necessary to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate on the suit.

The Judge said, “The court finds upon careful perusal of the Statement of Claim that the 3rd and 4th defendants are necessary parties to the suit as the presence will be necessary to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in controversy.

” Following from the above reasoning, the court finds that the suit against the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants are not liable to be struck out. In accordance with the above findings the applications of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants fail in their entirety and are accordingly dismissed.”

The defendants had in their applications sought an order of court setting aside the purported issuance of the Writ of Summons filed it relates to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th defendants 2nd defendants respectively.

In addition they also sought for an order setting aside the service of the Writ of Summons and other processes filed in this Suit on them and for and for such further order(s) as the court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.

The suit was filed by the Attorney General of Lagos State, on behalf of the State Government and the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth, Nigeria.

The defendants in the suit are: British American Tobacco (Nigeria) Limited, International Tobacco Limited, British American Tobacco Plc, British American Tobacco (Investment) Limited, Philip Morris International, and the Tobacco Institute.

The suit is seeking extensive reliefs that intend to regulate tobacco smoking especially as it affects youth and under-aged smokers.

In their suit, the claimants are making the following allegations:

.That the defendants have recently admitted that tobacco smoking has severe health implications including but not limited to cancer, cardiovascular and pulmonary complications and that in spite of the obvious knowledge of the adverse effect of their product, the defendants have surreptitiously and fraudulently targeted young and under-aged persons in their advertising and marketing”

.”That through the use of market surveys and sophisticated advertising, the defendants have utilized such means as music, cinema and fashion, to attract and addict young and underage persons into smoking.”

.”The mandatory health warnings inscribed on the pack is ineffective as the defendants promote a retail strategy of sale by the stick (the individual sticks that most consumers purchase have no such warning). This retail strategy is also a significant causal factor of youth smoking as it encourages easy access to the products.”

.”That on account of legal action, liability, and stricter control measures in the developed world such as the United States( where big tobacco companies and their lobby arms were mandated to pay compensatory damages of $260 billion to State Governments for public health costs).

.”That the Defendants have turned their focus to the developing world with Nigeria being a top priority. While there is a significant decline in the smoking rates in the developed world with diminishing health concerns, in the developing world such as Nigeria, smoking increases at least by 20% annually. In Lagos, two (2) persons die daily in the government-run health facilities, from tobacco related diseases.”

.An order of mandatory injunction compelling the defendants, their successors-in-title, privies and or agents to cease the marketing, promotion, distribution and sale of tobacco-related products to minors or under aged persons.

. An order of mandatory injunction restraining the Defendants from representing or portraying to minors or persons under the age of eighteen (18), any alluring and/ or misleading image regarding tobacco related products whether by direct depictions, pictorials, advertorials, images, words, messages, sponsorships, branding and/or through overt or covert and/or subliminal means; and

An order of Mandatory Injunction compelling the Defendants to publicly disclose, disseminate, and publish all research previously conducted directly or indirectly by themselves and their respective agents, parent or subsidiary companies, affiliates, servants, officers, directors, employees, and all persons acting in concert with or for them, that relates to the issue of smoking and health.

7 November 2009, Allafrica

LONDON – British American Tobacco PLC said Wednesday that cigarette sales volumes rose 2 percent in the first nine months, thanks to acquisitions in Denmark and Turkey. Not counting those deals, though, BAT sales fell.

The company said volume growth to 533 billion cigarettes was driven by last year’s acquisition of Skandinavisk Tobakskompagni in Denmark and Tekel in Turkey. The company reported “strong” revenue growth in constant currency and reported terms but released no figures.

Excluding the impact of acquisitions, volume was down 3 percent, the company said.

Trading conditions were “deteriorating,” BAT said, “with industry volumes lower in a number of markets including Japan, Russia, Brazil, Italy and South Africa, as well as a decline in the premium segment in the third quarter.”

Volume was flat in Asia-Pacific, down 9 percent in the Americas, up 10 percent in Western Europe, up 19 percent in Africa and the Middle East and down 7 percent in Eastern Europe.

Volume for BAT’s four “global drive brands” — Dunhill, Lucky Strike, Pall Mall and Kent — rose 2 percent, the company said.

The cigarettes in the royal blue package aren’t Pall Mall Lights anymore. Now they’re called Pall Mall Blues. Salem Lights, once sheathed in a kelly green box, are now cloaked in pastels and white, and known as Salem Gold Box.

With the new branding, and use of hues shown to evoke feelings of smoothness and health, a leading tobacco company has revealed a subtle sales strategy for an era of unprecedented federal oversight: Let the colors speak to smokers in the same way the soon-to-be-banned words “mild,” “light” and “ultra-light” did.

Harvard researchers and other tobacco-control specialists see in the new monikers and lighter, brighter palettes evidence that cigarette producers are intent on subverting a new law that empowers the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco companies – including a provision that as of next June 22 will banish words that promote certain cigarettes as safer.

Tobacco-control specialists have long harbored particular contempt for “mild” and “light” cigarettes, arguing they manipulate smokers into thinking those brands are less harmful when there’s no scientific evidence to support that claim.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, maker of the Pall Mall and Salem brands, denies attempting to bypass the law and says it is merely seeking to guide customers to their favorite brands.

But researchers said they recognize the packaging changes as a tactic the industry has rolled out in other countries with stringent tobacco rules.

Studies conducted in Canada and the United Kingdom, which both have a longer history of restricting tobacco industry marketing, found that smokers believe products labeled as “silver,” “gold” or “smooth” are safer and easier to stop using than high-octane cigarettes.

“These tricks are now well-established,” said Stanton Glantz, a tobacco-control specialist at the University of California, San Francisco. “The real question for the FDA is, are they going to let them get away with these shenanigans?”

FDA spokeswoman Kathleen Quinn said her agency was aware of changes being made to cigarette packaging and intends, before the labeling ban goes into effect, to “thoroughly review the use of descriptors, including the use of color.”

Reynolds, the nation’s second-biggest cigarette company, makes no secret of its reason for altering the packaging. Company spokesman David Howard cited both the impending federal regulation and a federal court ruling (currently on hold) that would also expunge the mild and light names.

“By using designations such as colors,” Howard said, “that makes it possible for retailers and adult tobacco consumers to clearly identify the different styles moving forward.”

HAVANA – Cash-short Cuba is slashing the amount of land devoted to growing its famous tobacco by more than 30 percent as the global recession and worldwide spread of smoking bans bite into sales of the country’s prized cigars.

Demand for Cuba’s cigars fell 3 percent in 2008 and earlier was reported down 15 percent in 2009 because of the recession and the smoking bans adopted in a growing number of places as a public health measure.

Cuba’s National Statistics Office, in a report posted on its web page (www.one.cu), said land to be planted with tobacco for next year’s crop had dropped to 49,000 acres, down from 70,000 acres, which was in turn less than 2008.

It said the coming crop was expected to be 22,500 tons, down from a planned 26,800 tons. The office blamed the drop on “financial restrictions that made it impossible to count on the necessary resources.”

Cuba’s prized cigar brands, including Cohiba, Montecristo, Trinidad and Partagas, dominate the world’s premium market with 70 percent of sales.

That jealously guarded market share excludes the United States, however, where Cuba’s cigars are banned under the 47-year-old U.S. trade embargo against the communist-led island.

A representative of the exclusive distributor of Cuban cigars, Habanos S.A., a joint venture between Cuba and British tobacco giant Imperial Tobacco Group Plc, said the company had no comment on the statistics office report.

Some 200,000 private farmers and their families depend on growing and curing the precious leaf under contract with the government, and tens of thousands of workers earn their living hand rolling the crop into the famous “Habanos” or “Puros” for export.

Tobacco seedlings are currently being readied for planting from November through January, with harvesting of the quick growing leaf beginning 45 days later. After that a year-long process of drying and curing begins.

Cuba’s dozens of cigar rolling factories have operated at well below capacity this year.

By Marc Frank, Reuters

There are different projects involving cigarette butts in Knoxville and in Chattanooga, but they are related by more than just the subject matter – and what has to be a distasteful job of collecting them.

Here, the project is part of Keep Knoxville Beautiful, which recently launched its anti-cigarette-butt campaign for the summer.

An initial canvass in June along a 0.2-mile stretch of Maynardville Highway in Halls yielded a harvest of more than 1,386 cigarette butts. An anti-litter campaign followed. Then, the group returned to the Maynardville Highway area for a second canvass, this time collecting 1,493 cigarette butts.

The increase likely was due to the jump in summertime traffic along the busy highway, a main thoroughfare into and out of Knoxville, according to Allison Teeters, executive director of Keep Knoxville Beautiful. She remains optimistic that the campaign will make a difference in the amount of cigarette butt litter.

“We’re trying to inundate people with information,” she said. “Because people who would never litter anything else would throw down cigarette butts.”

The campaign has been extended, and another canvass is planned, she said.

Cigarette-butt litter is illegal in the state and punishable by a $50 fine, says the state Department of Transportation. TDOT estimates that only about half of the state’s smokers properly dispose of their cigarettes in ash trays or throw the collected butts from the trays into trash cans. TDOT found that 20 percent of smokers admit to tossing butts out of their vehicle windows.

At the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, the interest in cigarettes is more scientific but nonetheless related to the litter campaign – if not common courtesy.

Researchers at UTC are studying cigarette butts to determine their impact on the environment, according to a story from The Chattanooga Times Free Press.

The study thus far shows that the metals and organic chemicals in cigarettes can leak out, contaminating water and killing microorganisms.

With more than 4.5 trillion cigarette butts discarded in the U.S. each year, researchers had no problem finding samples. “It’s pretty sad,” said Gretchen Potts, an associate professor of chemistry at UTC who started the research. She said no one has ever looked closely at what comes out of littered cigarettes.

While one cigarette won’t contaminate the environment, trillions of cigarette butts over time could cause problems.

Tobacco companies contend that the butts – tobacco and filter – are biodegradable. However, Potts said they can last up to 18 months in the environment, providing plenty of time for the chemicals to leak out.

Student researchers have been collecting discarded cigarette butts around the UTC campus and letting them sit in bottles of water to see what elements leak out.

The research could add clout to the anti-litter campaign in Knoxville and many other cities by adding environmental protection to scenic beauty as reasons to guard against tossing cigarette butts out vehicle windows or simply throwing them on the ground.

And, it might be a long shot, but perhaps even the anti-litter laws could be enforced once in a while.

Knoxnews

Griswold, Conn. — The state health department doesn’t keep statistics on where smokers live. But state Rep. Steve Mikutel, D-Griswold, said it’s probably safe to say Eastern Connecticut has more smokers than say, Fairfield County.

Given this, increasing the cigarette tax from $2 to $3 a pack may hit this area harder than others.

“People say they shouldn’t smoke, but some people do. It’s a habit, it’s hard to break,” Mikutel said. “Now, that’s not even the point. I don’t think we should engage in social engineering here. It’s just plain not fair. We’ve hit them three times.”

The state increased the cigarette tax from 50 cents to $1.11 per pack in 2002, to $1.51 in 2003 and to $2 per pack in 2007.

It will go to $3 per pack Oct. 1.

Won’t work

Mikutel, who does not smoke, said he opposed raising the tax from $2 to $3 because he believes it places an unfair burden on a relatively small number of taxpayers. He also doesn’t believe it will work; people will buy cigarettes out of state and on the Internet if the price goes up, he said.

The cigarette tax is somewhat sensitive to price; the state assumes that for every 10 percent it raises the price, it will see about 6 percent more money, said Tom Fiore, revenue section director for the Office of Policy and Management. The other 4 percent will be lost because people quit or get cigarettes some other way, he said.

Christopher Coutu, R-Norwich, said he opposed raising taxes in general; he doesn’t believe the cigarette tax is a reliable source of money.

“If you keep raising this tax, in some ways it’s good because it’s going to deter smoking,” he said. “But at the same time, if the state is doing it to raise revenue, is that really going to happen?”

Tobacco over food

Rachelle LeSieur of Norwich said if it came down to it, she’d probably buy cigarettes and eat Ramen noodles.

“Look at the demographics,” LeSieur, 26, said. “Many of the people who smoke are people getting state support. … Why haven’t taxes been increased on alcohol products?”

Alcohol taxes vary based on the type of alcohol and the amount. Beer is taxed at 20 cents per gallon, for example. Distilled liquor is taxed at $4.50 per gallon, according to the Connecticut Department of Revenue Services. The alcohol tax last went up in 1989.

Megan Orciari, communications associate for the Connecticut branch of the American Cancer Society, said the organization supported increasing the tax and dedicating money to helping people quit. Smoking is linked to 15 cancers and accounts for 30 percent of cancer deaths, she said.

“Quitting can save a smoker about $2,000 a year. So they could be saving money instead of spending more,” she said. “With the help of their doctor, they could quit.”

Kevin Yang, 27, of Norwich said the tax may encourage quitting.

“I’ve been wanting to do it for a long time but just haven’t had the incentive,” he said.

More smokers in area

Eastern Connecticut may feel the cigarette tax more than the western part of the state because smoking is closely linked with education and income. The Department of Public Health reported in 2007 that smokers were disproportionately represented in lower education and income levels in the state. New London and Windham counties were among the three counties with the lowest median household income, according to Bureau of Labor statistics for the same year. New Haven County is also in the mix.

The state expects to make $99.3 million from Oct. 1 to June 30 and $117.6 million the following fiscal year on the increase in the cigarette tax. Connecticut collects about $296 million a year in cigarette taxes now.

Al Geer, a member of the Board of Finance in Griswold, said the tax goes after someone with an addiction.

“I’ve got friends who are smokers, and it’s got a lock on them,” said Geer, who does not smoke. “By taxing them more, people, when they have an addiction, they’ll find the money somewhere.”

Copyright © Sep 07, 2009 Norwichbulletin

When April 1 hit this year, smokers probably wished what they were seeing in stores was just an April Fools Day prank. But the higher prices for cigarettes were no joke.

April 1 was the day when the state sales tax increased to 30 cents on a pack and to $3 on a carton. On that same day, the federal sales tax went up to 62 cents on a pack and $6.20 on a carton. Combined, the taxes increased to 92 cents per pack and $9.20 per carton.

Managers and owners of local convenience stores and groceries say the response of smokers was predictable — both before and after April 1.

Nancy Baker, longtime manager of the Save-A-Lot Tobacco Shed in Danville, compares what happened just before the big increases took effect to what occurs when a snowstorm is forecast.

“When people hear that a big snow is supposed to be coming, they run in next door (to the Save-A-Lot grocery) to buy up milk, eggs, bread and other staples,” Baker said.

“In the weeks prior to when the higher cigarette sales tax hit on April 1, sales of cartons were booming as smokers wanted to buy as many cigarettes as they could at the pre-tax hike prices,” she said.

But on April 1 and for a few weeks after, cigarette sales dropped off.

“Sales slowed down for a while, and I fully expected that to happen,” she said.

However, in the last two months or so, sales have rebounded, said Baker.

“Sales have returned to the levels we had before the sales tax increases went into effect, at least in terms of volume, or the numbers of packs and cartons we have been selling.”

While she wouldn’t compare the actual monetary figures for before and after the tax increases, Baker indicated that those figures might be a little lower now because a lot of customers at the shed are buying cheaper brands.

“Many people are switching to the generic brands, which are considerably cheaper than the regular brands,” she said.

Other local stores that sell cigarettes have experienced the same sales patterns.

“We sold a lot of cartons right before April 1, but for the first three weeks after that, sales got slower,” said Steve Prewitt, owner of Battlefield Food Mart in Perryville.

Since then, however, cigarette purchases have picked up.

“Sales are back to where they were before the big sales tax increases went into effect,” he said. “I can’t tell any difference between now and a year ago as far as cigarette sales are concerned.”

Prewitt said he can tell a difference, though, in the brands that customers are buying.

“Some customers have gone from the regular major brands to the cheaper brands,” he said. “But the big tobacco companies, like Philip Morris, recognize that and are offering special discounts. Prices for Marlboro, for instance, are lower.”

Christina Hill, an employee at Chills Quick Stop on Lexington Road in Danville, said the lower prices for Marlboro and some other major brands have helped increase sales at her store in recent weeks.

“Lately, we’ve been selling cigarettes like crazy, and a big part of that has been because of the deals Marlboro and other major brands started offering in late July.”

David Finley, owner of Parksville Country Store, said the sale of generic brands has been the major reason that overall cigarette sales have returned to pre-April 1 levels.

“We did experience the same drop-off in cigarette sales everybody else did right after April 1, and we’re seeing the same rebound in sales everybody else has over the last several weeks,” he said.

“What’s brought the overall volume of our sales back has been the fact that many of our customers have switched to the generic brands,” he said. “But the volume of sales of the major brands has not rebounded all the way back yet, though some of them are starting to lower their prices.”

As overall sales have improved, so has the mood of customers, said Paul Chambers, owner of Chambers Marathon in Danville.

“They have calmed down and don’t talk about the tax increases anymore,” he said.

“But right before and after the state sales tax was increased, everybody was complaining to me about it, like I was the one that raised the taxes,” he said.

“I told them, ‘Don’t gripe at me. Go to Frankfort and gripe at the governor and legislature,’” he said.

Meanwhile, there apparently is little to gripe about in revenue-strapped Frankfort. The increase in the state sales tax on cigarettes has pumped up tax receipts.

According to the state Department of Revenue, cigarette sales tax receipts during the April-July period this year totaled more than $92 million, which is an increase of more than $34 million, or nearly 60 percent, over the $58 million in receipts recorded for the same four-month period in 2008.

SO YOU KNOW

The state legislature increased the sales tax on cigarettes to 30 cents a pack and to $3 a carton, effective April 1. Since then, revenue from the tax increased from $58 million to $92 million, or by nearly 60 percent, when comparing April-July to the same four-month period last year.

The state also received another $16,351,818 during April-July from its floor stock tax on cigarette inventories.

Source: Kentucky Department of Revenue

MARTINSBURG, W.VA. — Bar owners in Berkeley County opposed to proposed changes to the county’s clean indoor air regulation because it no longer exempts their establishments from a smoking ban say they are planning to picket county administration offices in Martinsburg for the next three weeks.

Standing outside the Dunn Building along West Stephen Street with a sign with the words “Stop the Smoking Ban” written on it, Robert Kern, president of Four Corners Club in Inwood, W.Va., said Tuesday afternoon a group of concerned club owners and patrons has scheduled morning, afternoon and evening rallies two days a week through Sept. 17.

A larger rally is planned at the town square at 6 p.m. on Sept. 16 and Kern said the group also plans to attend a public hearing on the Berkeley County Board of Health’s proposed regulations at 6 p.m. on Sept. 10 at Hedgesville High School.

“There have been no complaints (with the existing regulation) and we have got along fine,” Kern said.

Smoking in bars and most hotel and motel rooms would no longer be allowed in Berkeley County if changes to clean air rules are adopted by the county’s Board of Health.

Rallying with Kern and about seven or eight other people on Tuesday afternoon, Bret Ruppenthal, president of Sky Room Lounge in Martinsburg, said 85 percent of his patrons at the club he operates off Rock Cliff Drive club are smokers. While questioning the impact on his business, Ruppenthal suggested the smoking ban would hurt the amount of revenue the county receives from the club’s video lottery machines.

Ruppenthal said he collected about 175 signatures for a petition that has been circulating among opponents of the clean indoor regulation.

Michael Keller, president of Duffey’s Tavern, wondered how clean indoor air proponents can suggest a smoking ban is needed to protect employees and patrons who are adults that are free to make their own choices.

Proponents of the smoking ban in places of employment have said the tougher regulation would protect employees in the hospitality industry, such as young people in their first job, who have little choice but to accept the unhealthy air conditions.


Copyright © 2009 Herald-mail

I’m a smoker with nearly 45 years of tobacco experience. I had been smoking over two packs a day for quite some time. I’ve tried many times to quit. Nothing worked. I became interested in E-cigarettes from what I had heard on TV and saw on the Internet. I checked what research was available and found the New Zealand report on E-cigarettes done earlier this year.

I decided to try them. Within days I was down from 15-16 packs a week to about two packs a week, and I can see that number dropping as time goes on.

I was seriously dismayed when the Food and Drug Administration redid its dog-and-pony show last month and more so when most articles didn’t question the FDA findings. I’m not a scientist, but the report the FDA used as its basis seemed awfully weak in actual numbers. Since that time, two articles have increased my doubts.

E-cigarettes have been around for five years without anyone having any serious problems.We all want a safer alternative than tobacco cigarettes. Maybe it’s not too late for me. The coughing stopped, I’m breathing easier and the smell of tobacco smoke actually bothers me now.

Maybe our news outlets should be looking more carefully into topics rather than just selling our government’s line.

Not all the people become smoking addicted. Some of them can smoke 2 cigs per day, but others can smoke 2 packs of cigarettes per day. For example, a recent study found that men and women who are gay or lesbian are more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to smoke, according to findings from a review study carried
The recent findings showed that as many as 37 percent of homosexual women and 33 percent of homosexual men smoke.
The authors examined findings from 42 studies of the influence of tobacco use among sexual minorities in the U.S. published between 1987 and May 2007. The findings showed that smoking is a significant health irregularity for sexual minorities.
Recognizing and understanding the increased risk in a particular population can help health-care officials and others provide support for people more likely to start smoking or who may want to stop smoking.
Unfortunately only a number of small or geographically limited studies have suggested that sexual minorities have higher rates of tobacco use than the general population,
Joseph Lee, a social research specialist with the Tobacco Prevention and Evaluation Program in the UNC School of Medicine, said: “The underlying causes of these disparities are not fully explained by this review. Likely explanations include the success of tobacco industry’s targeted marketing to gays and lesbians, as well as time spent in smoky social venues and stress from discrimination.”
He added: “Tobacco is likely the number one cause of death among gays and lesbians, but there is hope. Many gay and lesbian organizations are starting to reject addictive funding from the tobacco industry, and the community is organizing itself to address this health inequality through the National LGBT Tobacco Control Network.”
Researchers also reported that almost 40 percent of teenage lesbian or bisexual girls aged between 12 and 17 years old, said they smoked weekly compared with just six per cent of heterosexual girls in an ongoing study of 16,000 adolescents.
However, these high rates were not seen in gay or bisexual boys, who were no more likely to smoke than straight boys.
Several studies have shown that lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) persons have higher smoking prevalence than heterosexuals. However, few population-based studies have explored whether smoking-related knowledge, attitudes and behaviors also differ between the communities.

Nevertheless, tobacco control programs should continue to focus on this population to prevent smoking initiation, promote cessation, and reduce secondhand smoke exposure.

SHANGHAI: Organizers of the 2010 Shanghai World Expo said yesterday that they would not accept a 200 million yuan ($29 million) donation from a local tobacco company in order to observe the promise of a “healthy and smoke-free Expo.”

Sources from the Shanghai World Expo Coordination Bureau said organizers have annulled the sponsorship contract with Shanghai Tobacco in deference to China’s anti-smoking efforts and to maintain a healthy image at the world event.

The announcement has come in response to a week-long heated debate around China on the legitimacy of allowing tobacco promotion and sponsorship in a public event like the World Expo.

The debate was partly triggered by an earlier suggestion from a group of Chinese health experts that Expo organizers should reject the donation, which would have been a “public showcase of tobacco advertising” and a “violation of international treaties.”

Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), under which parties are obliged to undertake a comprehensive ban on tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, at both domestic and international levels.

In 2003, China, the world’s largest tobacco producer and consumer, signed the FCTC, and committed to banning all types of tobacco advertising and promotion by 2011.

Shanghai Tobacco, which produces China’s major cigarette brands including Panda and Chung Hua, donated 200 million yuan on May 7 to help build the China Pavilion, which is expected to cost 1.5 billion yuan.

The donation had been the largest amount so far since the donation drive for the China Pavilion kicked off in December 2007.

A spokesman from Shanghai Tobacco reached by China Daily yesterday refused to comment on the rejection.

The World Health Organization (WHO) yesterday praised the decision.

Expo turns down tobacco donation
A woman wears a gas mask to protest second-hand smoke during a performance art show in front of a Shanghai subway station in this file photo. [China Daily/Wu Kai]Expo turns down tobacco donation

“WHO congratulates the Expo authorities on their decision to return the donation from Shanghai Tobacco,” said WHO in a written statement to China Daily.

“This decision heralds a new healthier era in China as the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control comes into force and is fully implemented and respected. It is also wonderful news for the Shanghai Expo and is in keeping with its slogan, ‘Better City, Better Life.’”

Some netizens, however, voiced differing opinions.

On Sina.com, one of the most popular news portals in China, a netizen from western Gansu province said that organizers might have used the donation for anti-smoking campaigns.

“They (tobacco companies) have made so much money. Why don’t we use it for public good?” he said.

Others indicated the State-owned Shanghai Tobacco has long been a major contributor to the government, so it should come as no surprise that authorities first accepted the donation.

But Wu Yiqun, deputy director of the standing committee of ThinkTank Research Center for Health Development, an anti-tobacco organization, said she is glad to see rising awareness of tobacco control both within the government and among the public.

“The Chinese government has made great improvementfrom last year’s cancellation of charity titles awarded to tobacco companies to the recent return of the donation to the Expo It shows the awareness is growing.”

Six domestic tobacco companies were removed from the annual China Charity Awards list at the end of last year as a result of complaints from health departments and civil organizations. The six companies donated 963 million yuan in all.

But more needs to be done for China to strictly observe the FCTC and extend tobacco control to areas that used to be neglected, Wu said.

Some Hope Project schools in western China still sport names of the tobacco companies that donated money to them, which is obviously not good for the healthy development of children, she said.

Smoking ban in Shanghai

Following Beijing’s move to ban smoking in public places before the Olympics last year, health authorities in Shanghai have been trying to extend smoking bans from public venues to all indoor workplaces as measures to clear the city’s air of cigarette smoke ahead of the Expo.

A local anti-smoking law is currently under deliberation and likely to come into force by the end of this year, according to Ding Yuan, director of the tobacco control office under the municipal health bureau.

“All places with ceilings and at least three walls will be defined as indoor areas where smoking will be strictly prohibited,” a spokesman from the office had said previously.

But Ding conceded that authorities would have a “very difficult” time actually prohibiting smoking in all indoor areas as defined, so the final version of the law might be more lenient.

“But our message is clear: We encourage people to take action against indoor smoking and to promote a healthy lifestyle in the city.”

According to government statistics, China is home to some 350 million smokers, 1 million of whom die of smoking-related diseases each year.

About 54 million Chinese suffered from “passive smoking” and 100,000 Chinese die every year from exposure to second-hand cigarette smoke.

In Shanghai, one in four people is a smoker.
Copyright © 2009 Chinadaily

Sixteen-year-old Orisel Pacheco doesn’t smoke and isn’t interested.

“ …I just don’t want to get addicted and suffer when I’m old,” Pacheco said. The Northrop High School student was one of a record majority of Indiana youths who – responding to a survey last year – said they didn’t smoke.

According to the report released Thursday by Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation, youth smoking rates in the state have dropped to the lowest levels on record.

The organization’s executive director and a local health official said the main reasons for the decline were ordinances in the state banning smoking in public places, including Fort Wayne’s comprehensive smoking ban; higher cigarette prices brought on by a 2007 state cigarette tax increase; and education.

Smoking rates among high school students dropped from 23.2 percent in 2006 to 18.3 percent in 2008, a decline of 21 percent. The totals come from a survey of about 3,700 students in the state.

Pacheco is a member of Students Working Against Tobacco, an anti-tobacco program for middle school and high school students in Allen County sponsored by United Hispanic Americans Inc. Pacheco agreed to be interviewed for this story, but individual students’ answers were kept confidential.

Surveys were administered by local coalitions, not teachers, said Karla Sneegas, executive director of Indiana Tobacco Prevention and Cessation.

Middle school smoking rates were nearly halved in two years, dropping from 7.7 percent in 2006 to 4.1 percent in 2008. That was based on a survey of about 3,300 students in grades 6 to 8.

In all, 52 middle schools and 47 high schools were randomly selected by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to participate in the 2008 survey.

The percentage of teen “established smokers” – those who had smoked at least 20 of the 30 days before being surveyed – dropped by more than 25 percent, from 11.7 percent in 2006 to 8.7 percent in 2008. The drop was more good news, Sneegas said, because such teens are most likely to become lifelong smokers and therefore are most at risk for lung cancer and other problems.

Dr. Deborah McMahan, Allen County health commissioner, was also encouraged by the survey results.

“If we are sparing these young people from making a choice that might have a lifelong impact on their health and pocketbook, I think that’s a good public health thing to do,” she said.

McMahan expects rates to continue to drop.

Compared with 2000 – the first time the youth smoking surveys were conducted – high school rates have dropped 42 percent. Fewer than one in five teens surveyed in 2008 smoked, compared with nearly one in three teens in 2000. About one in 10 middle school-aged children smoked in 2000, and the number was closer to one in 24 last year.

Indiana youth smoking surveys weren’t conducted before 2000, so a fair comparison can’t be made with data derived before that. But in older studies, teen smoking rates were “never below 30 percent,” Sneegas said.


Copyright © 2009 Journalgazette

Thousands of South Dakota establishments were to have gone smoke free July 1st but didn’t because of a petition filed to block it.

South Dakota’s Secretary of State’s office tells Action News this is the first time the validity of a state-certified public petition has been challenged.

Earlier this year, the South Dakota Legislature approved, and Governor Rounds signed into law, a smoking ban for bars, restaurants and casinos to go into effect July 1st.

Last week, those opposed to the ban turned in a petition with 25,000 signatures to bring the issue to a public vote, though they needed just under 17,000 signatures.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson says his office certified 1,300 signatures, meaning the ban would not go into effect July 1st – but would instead go to a public vote in November 2010.

Today anti-tobacco groups, including the American Heart Association, say nearly 10,000 petition signatures are not valid and they are challenging its validity.

This afternoon, we spoke with the American Heart Association’s Darrin Smith. He tells us the challenge was filed with the Secretary of State’s office in Pierre at 4 o’clock Thursday afternoon. He said, “Several thousand people who signed the petition sheet are not registered voters. That was a very common mistake, in fact, the most common mistake made. Next, would probably be notary irregularities. There were several thousand signatures that we feel are invalid as a result of that.”

One of the key players behind the petition to bring the smoking ban to a public vote is Larry Mann, a well known lobbyist for the video lottery industry. He says the process of gathering signatures for this petition was legal and followed all necessary rules as set out by the state.

It will be up to the South Dakota Secretary of State’s office to determine the validity of the smoking ban petition.

We asked Deputy Secretary of State Teresa Bray this afternoon how they will validate the 10,000 signatures in question. “It is quite involved. Just doing the random sampling took us about 3 days to check and that was about 1,300 signatures so you can imagine how long it will take to do 10,000 signatures.”

Tuesday night, the Atascadero City Council voted to prohibit smoking and tobacco products in all outdoor recreational areas.

That includes parks, sports fields, trails and the Charles Paddock Zoo.

It’s the strictest ban countywide.

The city isn’t only worried about the dangers of secondhand smoke. The new ordinance also says no to all tobacco products including chewing and dipping tobacco, as well as snuff, to name a few.

Michael Roland of Atascadero has been a smoker for almost 16 years now. Come August, he won’t be able to light up in most outdoor locations after city council members adopted a new tobacco ban ordinance with a four to zero vote.

“I think it’s a load of bull. Personally,” said Roland.

For more than a year, the city of Atascadero has been trying to butt out smoking in outdoor places. City officials say the idea came after a few high schoolers came up with the proposal.

So after a little bit of investigating, “The issue was referred to our parks and recreation commission. They formed a sub-committee and the subcommittee did a lot of research and a lot of public outreach,” said Brady Cherry, director of community services for the city of Atascadero.

The commission recommended that only some outdoor locations prohibit tobacco products. On Tuesday, council members changed the ordinance to a full tobacco ban in all outdoor recreational venues. The first of its kind, says a spokesperson for the San Luis Obispo Tobacco Control Program.

“If somebody is caught, and they are cited, the fine is $100,” said Cherry. City officials say if you’re caught a second time in that same year, the fine doubles.

“I think that some people aren’t aware of the second hand smoke issues and the problems it can cause healthwise,” said Melissa Ellisor, an Atascadero resident.

“If the city is going to make that choice, I guess that’s something we’re going to have to abide by,” said Roland.

A bad habit that the city hopes smokers will learn to snub by mid-August.

San Luis Obispo County Tobacco Control Program says it will now use Atascadero as a model city in hopes that other cities will follow what they have done. By not just banning smoking but prohibiting the use of other tobacco products too.

In San Luis Obispo County, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande are both smoke-free cities. In Morro Bay, a smoke free ban applies only to beaches.

A day after an NGO threatened to move court if Mohali was not declared tobacco-free within 15 days, Deputy Commissioner Prabhjot Singh Mand on Saturday called a press conference to assure strict implementation of the Anti-Tobacco Act in the district.

In his first formal media interaction, Mand said the district officials have been asked to implement the act in its true spirit. He added the general public will be educated through the media, while schoolchildren will be made aware about the bad effects of tobacco during morning assembly when they will also be administered an oath against tobacco.

“Civic bodies will ensure that no illegal vendor sells tobacco and all office heads will check violation of the Anti-Tobacco Act in their respective offices, where warning boards will be displayed,” he said, adding that after the awareness campaign the violators will be fined.

© Indianexpress

Pipe and cigar smokers along with those who buy snuff and chewing tobacco in Hawaii are getting a four-month, $400,000 state tobacco tax holiday because of an error in a tax law written by the state Legislature.

House Bill 895 was vetoed by Gov. Linda Lingle, who said it was filled with technical mistakes. The Legislature overrode the veto, and now some of those mistakes are becoming apparent.

“It contains major technical flaws that defeat the purpose of the legislation and will make it virtually impossible to implement,” Lingle wrote in her veto message.

The inadvertent tax holiday was caused by a mistake in the bill that did not specify the tax on tobacco products other than cigarettes during the period from enactment until Sept. 30.

That error, according to legislative researchers, will result in a $400,000 loss in revenue.

But it might not be the only flaw.

Lingle said the new law on so-called “little cigars and existing tobacco law are in conflict, resulting in the state tobacco tax on cigarettes being raised to 14 cents per cigarette now and then dropped to 12 cents on Sept. 30.”

Rep. Marcus Oshiro, Finance Committee chairman, said the mistaken tax holiday cannot be corrected, but the cigarette tax switch can be handled by the legislative revisor of statutes.

The revisor, who is employed by the Legislative Reference Bureau, will be able to blend the two bills together to preserve the Legislature’s intent to raise the tax on all tobacco products, said Oshiro (D, Wahiawa-Poamoho).

The tax increase is an important part of the Legislature’s plan to balance the state budget and is estimated to bring in an extra $22 million a year. Oshiro warned that the Tax Department is expected to “enforce the law of the land.”

But Linda Smith, Lingle’s senior policy adviser, said they are asking the attorney general for guidance because they think the law is flawed.

“The way we read it, you have to raise the tax and then lower it,” Smith said yesterday in an interview.

Lowell Kalapa, executive director of the independent Tax Foundation of Hawaii, said he doubts that the revisor of statutes has the power to put the bills together. Kalapa says that HB 895, the last bill passed, is the one that governs and leaves the cigarette tax at the old rate.

“To me, that is the law, and the law is the law. Basically, we have no rate increase in the cigarette tax,” Kalapa said.

Both sides do agree that the tax on cigar and pipe tobacco ceases until Oct. 1.

Smith said the Tax Department “will be notifying those entities that they are not obligated between the 8th of May and the 30th of September from collecting and remitting the tax to the state of Hawaii.”

Copyright © 2009 Starbulletin

BAT are concerned about the growing global problem of illicit trade in tobacco products.
When cigarettes are smuggled across borders or moved into markets without the applicable duties and taxes being paid, governments and legitimate operators miss on revenue, and the market is destabilised. Some of our stakeholders believe that we somehow encourage the illicit trade in brands and products.

Smuggling harms the business. The aim is to have markets where we can invest and compete without the undermining effect caused by the availability of large volumes of illicit product. We are committed to doing everything we reasonably can to tackle the smuggling and counterfeiting of products. The principal driver of illicit trade continues to be economic – cheap cigarettes for consumers and profits for smugglers through tax evasion.
However, there are other factors such as weak border controls and ineffective sanctions. Addressing these properly would help reduce illicit trade. Through the provision of information, intelligence and training, believe can support governments in achieving appropriate tax policies, strong regulation and effective enforcement.
The approach to tackling illicit trade focuses on six themes:
- Effective internal governance to ensure
‘Know your Customer’ guidelines are
properly implemented;
- Gathering and sharing commercial and
business information to better understand
the drivers and impact of illicit trade;
- Working with enforcement authorities to
prevent illicit product entering a market;
- External engagement with relevant
stakeholder groups such as the World Trade
Organization (WTO) and enforcement
authorities;
- Educating regulators and legislators on the
impacts of illicit trade; and
- Internal awareness raising of the issue and
its challenges.
It is Group policy that companies and their employees do not knowingly engage in unlawful trade, and that business practices are directed at supporting only legitimate trade in products. This policy is set out in the Group’s Standards of Business Conduct. Specifically, we have ‘Know your Customer’ guidelines and procedures aimed at ensuring that our companies’ supplies to markets are consistent with legitimate
demand, and provisions for ceasing supply to customers if they are believed to have been complicit in smuggling. One challenge is raising awareness of the role of Free Trade Zones in illicit trade. The purpose of these zones is to facilitate free trade globally. However, both the World Customs Organization (WCO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) have identified the role of some Free Trade Zones in facilitating illicit trade. There are hundreds of these zones around the world and many are effectively safe havens for smugglers and counterfeiters. The illicit trade in tobacco products is high on the agenda of regulators and tobacco control groups, and it is an issue where the interests of the legitimate tobacco industry coincide with those of governments and policymakers.

During 2008, there were two principal instances of external allegations in relation to some of our companies’ marketing activities. BAT take any allegations of breaches of they IMS very seriously. They therefore conducted an internal review of allegations made in both an Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) report entitled ‘BAT’s African Footprint’ and a BBC programme entitled ‘This World’.
Two allegations were cited as evidence of promoting underage smoking that they feel warrant further explanation in this Report – underage access to a tobacco-branded music event in Malawi and single cigarette sales in some African countries.
A review of BAT involvement at the Malawi music event provided evidence that several age verification checks were performed and that the event was strictly for aged-18 or over. The Malawi police also attended to help our staff ensure that this was a strictly adult-only event. The BBC programme showed branded items such as t-shirts and caps for attendees, which all carried health warnings. At the time of the event, this was in line with they previous IMS but is something that BAT companies are no longer permitted to do under our updated IMS.

BAT do not supply single cigarettes and we sell our cigarette products in packs with health warnings. While we discourage single cigarette sales, in some countries this is not against the law and retailers split packs to
cater for adult smokers. They do not like this practice and try to discourage it. It is true that our company in Mauritius used to supply pots for retailers to hold single cigarettes. Although this practice was stopped in 2006, some retailers still use old pots. The company is working to remove these from retailers. Unfortunately, neither consumer preferences nor retail behaviours change overnight.
While BAT do not believe the ASH report or the BBC programme showed any clear evidence of our IMS being breached or of any laws being broken by this companies, it is important to us that stakeholders continue to raise any concerns they may have regarding adherence to our IMS, so that can investigate and take any appropriate action.

Smoking will be banned as early as this year in all public areas and inside buildings.

The Health, Welfare and Family Affairs Ministry said yesterday that it will designate 16 types of public facilities as non-smoking areas under a government roadmap on anti-smoking policy.

The facilities where smoking will be banned are large buildings; performance halls; private academic institutes; large sales outlets; lodging facilities; schools; indoor sports facilities; medical institutions; social welfare centers; public transportation venues; public bathhouses; game arcades; large restaurants; comic book stores; government buildings; and childcare facilities.

The wide range of non-smoking facilities will mean a virtual smoking ban in all public areas.

Only three types of public facilities are designated smoke-free: school buildings excluding universities, medical institutions and childcare facilities. Other facilities have designated smoking areas, while smoking banned in offices, conference rooms, halls and lobbies.

Game arcades, comic book stores and restaurants allow smoking as long as over half their floor sizes are designated as smoke-free zones, but the plan is to ban smoking at those places completely.

The ministry plans to revise the Public Health Promotion Law to make public facilities smoke-free. Public facilities can separate smoking areas from non-smoking areas, but will be required go to smoke-free completely.

“Most lawmakers sympathize with the intention of the law revision so the bill will likely pass the National Assembly in the June session,” a ministry official said. “If passed, the law will take effect in December after a six-month grace period.”

Source: English.donga

Support for a statewide smoking ban is growing among an unlikely group: tavern owners.

A group representing 100 taverns across the state has formed a new group known as Taverns Clearing the Air.The owners of restaurants, golf courses and bowling alleys are also part of the coalition. They said a statewide ban is the only way to create a level playing field among businesses, WISC-TV reported.”It’s been proven over and over again in many states and many cities,” said Hawk Schenkel, owner of Hawk’s Bar and Grill in Madison. “You can have a smoke-free environment, and it actually helps business.”Taverns Clearing the Air is working with the group Smoke Free Wisconsin but not the Tavern League of Wisconsin.However, the tavern league said this coalition could bring about a solution to the smoking ban debate.Currently, 38 Wisconsin communities have smoke-free ordinances.

Source: Channel3000