As the debate over the electronic cigarette continues , the device has found at least three true believers in Jackson County.
Mildred “Mikay” Barrentine, 30, along with Pat Manning, 37, and 45-year-old Linda Lockwood, the latter two of Altha, are enthusiastic about the e-cigarette. All three are long-time heavy smokers who have given up traditional cigarettes in favor of “vaping,” users’ common term for this alternative to smoking.
Although e-cigarettes are not marketed or proven in studies as a smoke cessation device, all three say it has worked for them.
They breathe better and cough less. They also food tastes better, and they can smell it better, too, because they are no longer using tobacco with tar and the hundreds of chemicals contained in regular cigarettes.
Their clothes no longer get the tiny holes that flying sparks from cigarettes can ignite, and they no longer have to worry about burning holes in the carpet or their cars, since there’s no ash and fire waiting to fall onto the floorboard while they’re driving.
They spend relatively less on vaping than they spent on cigarettes, they say.
They also no longer have to leave the comfort of indoors at public places to enjoy a drag — at least for now.
That could change as the nation grapples with how to regulate the devices. Whether they should be considered permissible in “smoke free” environments is part of that discussion.
The Food and Drug Administration says not enough is known about the health effects of the devices, and the FDA has in the past seized some shipments coming from China in an attempt to regulate them as drug-delivery devices. The FDA also wants to regulate their marketing techniques, and wants to know more about quality controls.
But the agency suffered a setback in January, when a judge ruled the FDA hasn’t got the authority to do so under present regulations. The judge ruled the devices should be treated like cigarettes, which are sold over the counter at almost every convenience store and in many other venues throughout the country. They are not considered a drug-delivery device, the judge reasoned.
“There is no basis for FDA to treat electronic cigarettes … as a drug-device combination when all they purport to do is offer consumers the same recreational effects as a regular cigarette,” U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon wrote in his decision.
“FDA cites no evidence that (e-cigarettes) … are any more an immediate threat to public health and safety than traditional cigarettes, which are readily available,” he continued.
Regular cigarettes carry a Surgeon General’s warning, something e-cigarettes are not subject to at present.
At least some self-governing providers, however, do place warnings on their devices advising that they’re not for children, pregnant women or non-smokers, but rather for those who already smoke and want an alternative.
The FDA did gain traction on another point, however, which will likely put e-cigarettes back under its regulatory wing soon.
The agency was recently given authority to demand that cigarette makers disclose what is in their tobacco products, and the authority to study them determine exactly what’s in them. Based on some cigarette manufacturers’ disclosures in the 1990s, it has been widely reported that cigarettes can contain almost 600 chemicals.
The FDA had done some preliminary tests of a few e-cigarettes back when they were being seized, and has issued a statement.
In a July 2009 agency news release, the FDA warned the public about the devices.
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced that a laboratory analysis of electronic cigarette samples has found that they contain carcinogens and toxic chemicals such as diethylene glycol, an ingredient used in antifreeze,” the FDA wrote.
“These products are marketed and sold to young people and are readily available online and in shopping malls,” the release continued. “In addition, these products do not contain any health warnings comparable to FDA-approved nicotine replacement products or conventional cigarettes. They are also available in different flavors, such as chocolate and mint, which may appeal to young people.”
FDA also pointed out that, while the food-flavoring ingredient has been found safe for that use, the effect when inhaled as a vapor hasn’t been studied.
Those who oppose the devices say they fear smokers will not give up traditional cigarettes but will simply augment or replace their old habit with a new one, increasing the amount of nicotine they use and therefore their health risks.
Barrentine, Manning and Lockwood reacted to those statements, saying that the manufacturers market to adults, not children, and in fact have statements on their cartridges which say e-cigarettes are not meant for kids.
As for the chemicals found in the FDA’s limited testing, the women say traditional cigarettes have those chemicals and a host more. E-cigarettes, they say, are infinitely safer than regular cigarettes, and should be left available for those who want a less dangerous puff.
All three said they’d most likely go back to regular cigarettes if e-cigarettes are pulled from the market.
They say they’re not tempted in the least to use regular cigarettes while this is available, and are even repulsed by the smell and taste of their old habit.
Barrentine, who closely follows online forums, said she has yet to find comments about any side effects. She thinks her chances of coming to harm with e-cigarettes is far less than if she were still smoking.
There are many variations, and Barrentine prefers the “silver bullet” version that delivers more vapor per puff than the more traditional-looking type. She makes her own flavored nicotine juice, instead of buying cartridges, and “tailpipes” it by squeezing drops straight into the atomizer.
Manning and Lockwood also use similar, less traditional devices, but Manning also uses the more traditional e-cigarette as well.
In the ones that look most like a cigarette, the main body of the device is actually a 3.5-volt rechargeable battery encased in a cylinder about the size of a cigarette. A short metal atomizer, about the size of a filter, is screwed into it. A mostly hollow cartridge, of the same shape but slighter bigger than the atomizer, contains an amount of liquid nicotine, propylene glycol (a substance used in food coloring), and flavoring.
The cartridge, which has a small opening, slips over the vaporizer like a glove. It resembles the filter-end of a cigarette. The user sucks air through the opening, an action which sends voltage to the battery and activates the atomizer. An element in the atomizer get hot, and brings the warmed air to the cartridge, which turns the liquid nicotine into a vapor.
The user expels the vapor, which resembles smoke but doesn’t smell or behave like it. The vapor quickly dissipates, and does not create as much volume compared to the amount of smoke generated by a burning cigarette.
The smell of the vapor depends on the type of flavoring used — and there are many, ranging from chocolate to coffee. The smell is detectible only briefly and at close range. The end of the battery, like the end of a cigarette, lights up while the user is inhaling, but no combustion is used in the process.
Several different views of the e-cigarette can be found by searching the term online.
The local health department has weighed in, as well. Adrian Abner, Tobacco Prevention Specialist with the Jackson County Health Department, said his agency takes the position that no nicotine is safe and advocates total cessation.
The health department provides FDA-approved cessation aids free of charge, he said, along with full support to help people quit.
He cited the FDA report as one reason for the health department’s concerns about the devices, beyond the fact that they deliver nicotine.
“There is help out there for quitting completely,” Abner said. “That includes free nicotine replacement therapy for those who wish to quit. We can order these and provide cessastion services.”
Abner said county residents wanting to quit can call or e-mail the health department to participate. They can also call 1-877-UCAN-NOW, or visit http://www.floridaquitline.com.
Abner’s number is 526-2412, ext. 188.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By SCOTT JAMES, Nytimes
February 18, 2010

To get Roger Evans riled, ask him about the new state law that bans smoking in nearly every bar and restaurant.

In a monologue punctuated with expletives, he will tell you the law is the stupidest thing he’s ever heard. Property owners should be able to make their own rules when it comes to smoking. Simply talking about it makes him so angry that he lights up a cigarette.

First, though, Evans, 67, slides off his barstool at Marcom’s Tavern in North Raleigh and steps outside into the cold wind.

As much as smokers and some business owners have complained about the law, nearly all of them comply with it. There are more than 24,000 businesses in the state that are subject to the new regulations. During the first week of February, the state logged 71 complaints about potential violations. No businesses have been fined.

The relatively low number of complaints shows “the coordination we’ve put into this at the state and local level is working,” said Jim Martin, director of policy and programs for the Tobacco Prevention and Control Branch of the N.C. Division of Public Health.

County health departments are responsible for enforcing the law. Health department officials check out complaints, which can be verified only with evidence, such as a customer smoking or the presence of ashtrays. Verified complaints trigger a warning. After two written warnings, businesses can face fines of up to $200 per day.

Since the law took effect, county health departments across the state have sent only 11 first-level warning letters. In all, there have been 608 complaints statewide, with the number generally decreasing week-to-week.

Enforcement has added another chore for health department staff, but the workload varies from county to county.

Johnston County has received only three complaints, one of which was described as “spurious” by Larry Sullivan, the county’s director of environmental health.

Wake has received 54, only one of which was reported in the most recent week of statistics. The extra work “has been taxing,” said health director Sue Lynn Ledford. When a complaint comes in, a department employee is dispatched to the bar or restaurant to reiterate the new rules. Schedules have been adjusted so someone is available when bars are open.

Health departments are more or less on their own in paying for the enforcement. Each county received a bit of money to help with education efforts, the amount varying depending on the county’s number of bars and restaurants. Wake County received $18,718. Much of that money, Ledford said, will be used to hire a temporary employee to help educate business owners.

Modeling its enforcement after other states, North Carolina uses a statewide database to collect complaints. Nearly all of the complaints, which are gathered over the phone and on the Web, are anonymous. But Lee Storrow, a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill, provided his name when he filed a complaint in January against Players, a Franklin Street bar.

He saw two people smoking on the same night but has been back several times since and has not witnessed any smoking.

“It’s good to see people complying with the law,” he said.

Kathy Marcom, owner of Marcom’s Tavern in Raleigh, said the new law has hurt business. She estimates that 75 percent of her more than 400 members are smokers, many of whom stayed home on Super Bowl Sunday.

“Last year we were packed in here,” she said. “This year we had maybe 10 people.”

The Wake County Health Department has received 14 complaints about Marcom’s, more than any other establishment.

Marcom originally thought her bar was exempt from the new rule because it does not receive a sanitation score from the health department. She serves no food and uses disposable cups. So for the first couple of weeks, people continued to smoke in her bar.

But after a visit from the health department, the smokers, surly or not, have been sent outside.
BY MATT EHLERS, Newsobserver
Feb 15, 2010

New York City can’t use a federal racketeering law to accuse discount cigarette retailers of evading hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes on Internet sales, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled.

The nation’s highest court, voting 5-3, today threw out the city’s claims under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act in lawsuits filed in 2003 and 2004.

More than 400 Web sites sell cigarettes over the Internet with many falsely advertising their sales as “tax free,” according to one of the complaints. The city accuses the retailers of not complying with a federal law requiring them to turn over information about their customers to state officials for tax-collection purposes.

Writing the court’s lead opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts said there wasn’t a close enough connection between the alleged failure to supply that information and the city’s inability to collect the taxes. The city contended it could have used the state information to pursue unpaid taxes.

“We have never before stretched the causal chain of a RICO violation so far and we decline to do so today,” Roberts wrote.

The decision reversed a 2008 ruling by a federal appeals court. Two of the defendants, Hemi Group LLC and Kai Gachupin, appealed to the Supreme Court.

Other City Claims

The appeals court decision left open the possibility that the city might be able to press claims against the retailers under New York state law. The Supreme Court didn’t review that part of the ruling.

The city is also invoking a different federal law, known as the Contraband Cigarette Trafficking Act, against other cigarette retailers and wholesalers. That law was amended in 2006 to authorize lawsuits by local governments.

“The city currently has available to it stronger, new legal ammunition that we have used successfully – and will continue to use in the future – in our fight against cigarette bootlegging and tax evasion,” said Leonard Koerner, the chief of the appeals division in the New York City Law Department.

At $4.25, the tax on cigarettes sold in New York City is the highest in the nation. The state collects $2.75 and the city $1.50.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined Roberts’s opinion. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg agreed with the result, though she accepted only some of the chief justice’s reasoning.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor didn’t take part in the case.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.

The case is Hemi Group v. City of New York, 08-969.

By Greg Stohr
January 25, 2010

As of Friday, all cigarettes sold in Texas must be certified Fire Standard Compliant, according to the Texas Department of Insurance, but the New Year’s Day deadline shouldn’t be a surprise for customers or vendors.

The law mandating the new smokes, designed to reduce the amount of time a cigarette continues to burn when it is not being smoked, was signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry in June 2007.

The law required all cigarettes sold in Texas to be compliant with the new standards by Jan. 1, 2009, but enforcement wasn’t scheduled until Jan. 1, 2010.

The yearlong period was to allow retailers to dispose of or sell existing inventory of noncompliant cigarettes.

Any manufacturer, wholesaler/distributor or retailer who knowingly sells or offers for sale noncompliant cigarettes may be subject to a fine of up to $100 per pack.

Gerald Middleton, owner of Jerry’s Smoke Shop in Abilene, said he still sees people looking for pre-FSC cigarettes from time to time, but stocks vanished long ago.

Middleton said numerous customers have complained about the difference between the old smokes and the new.

“They taste awful — that’s the biggest complaint I get,” he said, adding that the fire safety properties of the new cigarettes formed another common complaint.

“If you want to have a cigarette, the last thing you want it to do is go out four times when you’re smoking it,” he said.

By contrast, Duane Hufstedler, an employee at The Leaf, an Abilene tobacconist, said it is rare for people to complain about the changes made to their favorite brands.

“It’s only been a couple of people who have commented in general about government intrusion or something like that,” he said. “Maybe one has mentioned that they don’t taste as good. But most people have gone on and haven’t really noticed.”

The predominant method of making cigarettes fire safe is to wrap them in two or three thin bands of paper that are less porous than the outer paper tube, according to the Texas Department of Insurance Web site.

The bands act as “speed bumps,” slowing down the burning of a cigarette and causing it to self-extinguish.

Gary Hamner of the Abilene Fire Department said it is difficult to know how much of a difference the new cigarettes have made locally.

“I have no statistics whatsoever to lay claim to the fact that we have had less fires,” he said. “We have had one fatality this year due to smoking, and then we had a pretty bad apartment fire just last week that was attributed to improperly discarded cigarettes.”

But in theory, at least, the changes should help, he said, when it comes to preventing cigarette fires.

Suzanne Starr, education services manager with Hendrick Cancer Center’s learning center, said that if the difference in taste is sufficient, it might serve as an encouragement to some to quit.

“Anything to help people quit,” she said.

Texas is among 49 states where FSC legislation is either in effect or has passed, according to the TDI.

Wyoming filed FSC legislation in 2009, but it has not been passed.

The State Fire Marshal’s Office, which is a part of the Texas Department of Insurance, is responsible for all FSC cigarettes certifications, inspections and enforcement in Texas.

Facing a daunting deficit, some lawmakers plan to again target the smaller cigarette companies that didn’t participate in Florida’s settlement with the tobacco industry about a decade ago.

Back in 1997, Florida reached a settlement with large tobacco companies that the state contended were costing Florida money by making people sick. The settlement included companies that made most of those cigarettes – but left out a few companies with barely enough market share to be noticed. Those companies, though, particularly Miami-based Dosal, have greatly increased their share of the market since then.

And with Florida facing a deficit of some $2.7 billion, adding Dosal and other small companies to the settlement could bring in $70 million or so new dollars that when matched by Medicaid money from Washington could mean about $200 million for Florida health care programs.

“It’s almost like the state of Florida is appropriating $150 million to $200 million a year to cigarette companies and in this environment it’s unconscionable,” said Senate Finance and Tax Chairman Thad Altman, R-Melbourne. “We’ve got to fix that problem.”

A move in the Senate last year to try to add the non-settling tobacco companies to the settlement, requiring them to pay into state coffers, got bogged down in discussions over a broader tobacco surcharge that was eventually passed.

The proposal also ran into opposition from Dosal, which would be hit hard by being saddled with the same requirement as the bigger companies. Dosal argues that only the courts could add other companies to a legal settlement – not lawmakers – and that it shouldn’t be forced to pay for historical bad behavior by the tobacco giants, anyway.

The reason they were left out of the settlement agreement depends on who you ask. Those who want to add the smaller companies say it was simply because their market share was too small. Dosal says that’s not true at all – it didn’t settle with Florida because, unlike the big tobacco companies, it wasn’t accused of wrongdoing in the original lawsuit.

Regardless, Altman and a few others in the Legislature now want small companies like Dosal – which have dramatically increased their market share in the last decade – to pay into Florida’s health care coffers.

“It’s also a fairness issue for me,” said Altman, who said he will likely file a bill this year to try to force the companies that weren’t in the settlement to begin paying. “It’s fundamentally unfair to have what is now 20 percent of the market having some sort of advantage. And it undermines the entire effort of what was most important under the settlement – to curb smoking.”

Backers of the idea last year included former Attorney General Bob Butterworth – who was in office when the settlement was reached.

The move is also being pushed by the companies who did settle with Florida – who now are competing with the smaller non-settling companies.

They’re no longer insignificant competitors, either.

“Today, 12 years later, you’re talking about almost 20 percent of the market,” for the non-settling companies said David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA’s parent company Altria, which is lobbying for adding its competitors to Florida’s settlement. “If one of the main things was to reimburse the state for health care costs related to smoking, some people are enjoying the opportunity to decide whether they’re going to pay into that stream based on the brand they buy….The fee would just sort of level that paying field – to the state’s benefit.”

That argument infuriates officials of Dosal, which shut down for a day last spring so its employees could trek to Tallahassee to remind lawmakers that the company’s workers are voters in this state and that the company provides jobs in Miami – not unimportant when unemployment hovers above 10 percent.

“Those guys in the settlement agreement, they are paying for past wrongdoing,” said Sarah Bascom, a spokeswoman for Dosal. “It was for a host of acts of wrongdoing, it has nothing to do with the effects of smoking, it had nothing to do with the size of the market…..They’re paying for things like lying to Congress, advertising to minors…. We weren’t a part of that.”

ALBANY, N.Y. — A deepening deficit has New York officials looking again at how to collect unpaid taxes on cigarettes sold by Indian tribes to non-Indians.

The issue is also making unlikely allies of cigarette makers and anti-smoking interests who say taxation would limit illegal sales and keep cigarettes out of the hands of minors.

A budget hearing Tuesday in Manhattan will weigh the potential revenue against concerns that any attempt to collect the taxes could cause a repeat of sometimes violent confrontations between the state and tribes in the 1990s. The Legislature has pressed for collection before, but past governors have refused, preferring to try to negotiate agreements.

At stake is what lawmakers, cigarette companies and a leading anti-smoking group say is $400 million or more in annual revenue. That disputed figure would be almost equal to a proposed cut in midyear school aid that’s intended to help close a $3 billion budget deficit.

For tribes like the Seneca Indian Nation, the taxes could mean an end to fortunes being made from an empire built on Internet sales to individual “smoke shops” on territories like the small Poospatuck Reservation on Long Island. They say the untaxed sales are guaranteed by treaties dating to 1794 that protect them from taxation, and they don’t recognize state courts’ views that side with the state.

The Senecas also argue that their sales yield millions more in spinoff economic benefits to communities than the taxes would generate.

Manufacturers would like the state to collect the taxes on an estimated 28 million untaxed cartons a year.

“If we had enforcement of the laws on the books, that would go a long way,” said David Sutton, spokesman for Altria, Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc., parent company of Philip Morris USA, the nation’s largest tobacco maker.

Companies believe that would protect their product from illegal activities, including bootlegging and inferior “counterfeit” cigarettes packaged like branded products, which cut into profits and consumer loyalty. Sutton also notes it’s easier for underage buyers to buy tobacco products over the Internet and by mail. More revenue could also forestall further tax increases on cigarettes, already the most taxed item on the market. A pack now carries a $2.75 state tax, with another $1.50 tax added in New York City.

Tobacco companies have recently mounted their own stings against counterfeit sales of their product, alerting police who would then raid the retailers.

“The failure to collect the tax is a major public health problem,” said Russ Sciandra of the Center for a Tobacco Free New York, which finds itself on the same side of the argument as Philip Morris. “There are thousands of people who would quit smoking if they had to pay the full price.”

He said Philip Morris, still a major lobbying force in Albany, will make a rare public appearance at the Tuesday hearing in part because tribes are no longer simply selling major brands. Some are making their own. Three manufacturing facilities are being operated in the Senecas’ territory by independent makers.

Sciandra also disputes Gov. David Paterson’s recent caution. The Democrat has warned that no state ever succeeded in collecting more than $75 million a year by going after Indian-sold cigarettes. That wouldn’t be much of a dent in a $3 billion deficit and far short of the $400 million in revenue estimated by lawmakers, Philip Morris and the anti-smoking group.

But Sciandra said the point is that collecting the tax would significantly reduce sales on Indian territory and revenue would jump around the state.

The tribe estimates its cigarette sales bring $71 million in net gain to the states’ communities in spinoff sales to restaurants, clothing stores and other businesses from its 1,000 employees, many of whom are not Indians. Under taxation, the tribe argues that revenue would be shifted to the state for its spending, much of it in New York City.


By MICHAEL GORMLEY

NEW YORK — Gov. David Paterson is concerned that members of the state’s Indian tribes may engage in “violence and civil unrest” if he attempts to tax cigarettes sold at reservation smoke shops.

In a letter dated Sept. 23, Paterson asked three of the state’s top federal prosecutors to help him assess the possibility of violent demonstrations if the state begins collecting its $2.75 per-pack tax on cigarettes sold at tribal shops.

Paterson also asked the Justice Department for an “operational commitment to help mitigate any disturbances that might occur.”

The letter was sent in confidence, but a copy was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press.

A law taxing cigarettes sold to non-Indians on the reservations has been in place for years, but previous New York governors have chosen not to enforce it, partly out of fear of stirring up trouble.

The last two attempts to collect such taxes, in 1997 and 1992, led to clashes between tribal protesters and police.

During the 1997 clash, demonstrators halted traffic on the New York State Thruway, set fires and brawled with State Troopers. The state retaliated by blockading the reservations. Then-Gov. George Pataki ultimately backed down.

Since then, the reservation shops have become among the biggest cigarette dealers in the state, selling more than 300 million packs annually. Some reservations are now also home to cigarette factories churning out native brands sold throughout the U.S.

But with the state desperate for new revenue, Paterson is signaling he is giving the issue new thought.

In his Sept. 23 letter, the governor told the U.S. Attorneys for Western New York, Northern New York and Long Island that while his intent was to continue negotiating with the tribes, he wished to assess the possibility “of a repeat of the violent demonstrations that occurred in 1997″ if the state were to act without an agreement.

“I would be grateful if you would please review this matter and provide me with your assessment as to the likelihood of violence and civil unrest,” he wrote.

Richard Nephew, chairman of the governing council at the Seneca Nation, the state’s biggest seller of reservation cigarettes, dismissed the letter with a statement suggesting that the governor was right to be concerned.

“We see the letter as nothing more than the Governor doing his job to assess the historic consequences of what happens when the state tries to violate our treaty rights,” he said.

Spokespeople for the Shinnecock Nation and the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe had no immediate comment. The chief of the Unkechaug Nation did not immediately return an e-mail message. Each of those tribes oversee reservations where untaxed cigarettes are big business.

Paterson spokesman Morgan Hook declined to talk about the matter Tuesday, saying the letter spoke for itself.

The legality of cigarette sales on the reservations has come into question this year as a pair of federal judges in New York have separately ruled it illegal for the smoke shops to sell untaxed products to people who aren’t members of the tribe.

Several smoke shops on the Unkechaug-controlled Poospatuck Reservation have shut down rather than comply with a judge’s order, but there has been no violence or public demonstrations.

By DAVID B. CARUSO , 10.21.09

For the first time in St. Louis’ history, citizens will have the option to vote on a county-wide smoking ban on Nov. 3. The ban would prohibit smoking in public places, though smoking would still be allowed in drinking establishments that earn three-fourths of their income through the sale of alcohol.

If the county ban passes, a similar ban in the city introduced earlier this year will go into affect as well. The city ban would remove smoking in all restaurants and bars without exception. If passed, the county ban would not go into effect for another year.

Councilmen voted Aug. 25 for the county ban, introduced by Councilwoman Barbara Fraser, to appear on the ballot this November. The smoking ban referendum passed with a vote of 4-3.

“We’ve learned over the last 20 years how dangerous cigarette smoking is,” said Suzanne Maddox, a registered nurse at Webster University’s Student Health Services. “If we can pass laws to protect those people who don’t want to be exposed to (smoking), I think that’s right.”

Although Maddox agrees with the ban, she doesn’t think it’s entirely fair. She believes the ban should cover all smoking establishments and not just a select few.

Bill Hannegan, founder of Keep St. Louis Free, an organization to protect St. Louis citizens’ rights, especially with smoking bans, has concerns with the ban invading property rights.

“(My biggest concern) with the ban is our freedom of property rights being stripped,” Hannegan said. “Businesses have a right to allow a legal product to be used on their property as long as they can deal with present health effects and secondhand smoke.”

Hannegan started Keep St. Louis Free in response to the county smoking ban proposed by former Councilman Kurt Odenwald in February 2005. Since then, he has gone around the country to prevent smoking bans from going into affect in other cities and counties.

“A smoking ban is a type of eminent domain,” he said. “People are looking at bars and saying it would be better if there was no smoking. It’s not their business. They don’t own it. Why should they be telling a bar owner how he should run his business?”

Although Maddox supports the ban, she empathizes with St. Louis business owners who will most likely lose business due to the ban.

“I can see where it might cause (owners) problems,” Maddox said. “I think it would be more appropriate if the ban were to include all public places. It’s not quite fair.”

Martin Pion, president of Missouri GASP (Group Against Smoking Pollution), supports the smoking ban whole-heartedly.

Pion lives by the motto he heard when he first began advocating the right to breathe smoke-free air.

“Your right to smoke ends where my nose begins,” Pion said.

Pion stresses that, while smokers have the right to smoke, non-smokers have the right to request clean air. He said smokers putting others at risk is not acceptable.

“You can smoke if you want to as long as you’re not affecting anybody else,” Pion said. “I’m not trying to stop you from smoking. I’m just saying, when you harm someone else by doing it, it crosses the line.”

Missouri GASP, a volunteer-based organization to help remove smoking in public places, formed in 1984. Pion has been president of the organization since it began.

While he supports the bill, he doesn’t support the term “smoking ban.”

“I don’t like that they call it a ’smoking ban,’” he said. “We’re not trying to ban smoking. We just want smoke-free air.”

Marty Ginsburg, owner of the bar and restaurant Sports Page in Chesterfield, agrees with Maddox.

“I don’t think it’s fair,” Ginsburg said. “The exemptions included in the bill are discriminatory. The ban should either be 100 percent, or not at all.”

The exemptions within the bill include smoking allowed in establishments with three-fourths sale of alcohol, as well as smoking in casino gaming floors only.

Ginsburg worries that his business will suffer from the ban, mainly because his establishment is about equal in sale of alcohol and food.

“(The ban) will affect Sports Page most during the nights,” he said. “I’m really concerned about the happy hour business and the late-night business.”

In 2005, when Odenwald introduced his idea for a smoking ban, Ginsburg immediately had a no-smoking area built in his restaurant.

“We decided on a smoke-free area the last time all this stuff came up,” he said in reference to the 2005 ban that ultimately never passed. “The area is totally smoke free, with 14 tables and TVs for our customers.”

Hannegan, too, supports the idea of smoke-free areas within restaurants and bars, as well as proposing a law that allows only people 21 and older to enter establishments that allow smoking. He believes this would correct the secondhand smoke epidemic among youth, a considerable factor in the smoking ban proposal.

Secondhand smoke and St. Louis’ general health are two main reasons Pion fights for the ban to pass.

“I think this is a very important public health issue,” Pion said. “If (the bill) doesn’t pass, it will set back the goal of smoke-free air. There are a lot of people who deserve and need (smoke-free air).”

Rebutting Hannegan’s argument about property rights being stripped, Pion said, “Mr. Hannegan and others have been trying to make this a personal property rights issue, when clearly it’s a health and safety issue. The argument simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. A primary duty of government is to protect the public health and welfare.”

Although Hannegan agrees health to be an issue that must be considered, he feels citizens’ rights and freedoms should be considered more.

“I think fighting this ban is imperative,” Hannegan said. “There’s this process by which we’re losing our freedoms in this country and that really scares me. I mean, what’s next?”

By: Amanda Keefe Webujournal

With smoking banned just about everyplace except for that tiny spot behind the loading dock, more committed nicotine fiends are turning to e-cigarettes, battery-powered, cig-shaped devices that you can dangle off your lip just about anywhere. Proponents say they offer a healthier alternative to tobacco for smokers who have trouble quitting. But health concerns have led to warnings from the FDA that the fakes contain cancer-causing ingredients. Oops.
Inside: Poll – Would you “smoke” e-cigarettes?

E-cigarettes are primarily sold online and in mall kiosks, and a starter kit goes for around $50. According to Matt Salmon of an e-cig trade group, smokeless smokes are already a $100 million market in the U.S. and are popular among frustrated smokers.

“The ideal user for this is someone who is a committed, longtime smoker,” Salmon said. “Their spouse doesn’t want them in the house because they smell. There’s no acrid odor or secondhand smoke with this. It doesn’t leave a smell on your carpet, clothes or draperies.”

However, e-cigarettes have already been banned in Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico and other countries. And the FDA is continuing to review them. But smokers like John Wisniewski still see them as a potentially healthier alternative to tobacco. “I can’t keep going on like this and inhaling all these carcinogens,” the smoker told the Detroit Free Press.

By Marc Perton, Oct 1 2009, Consumerist

The Grass Valley City Council voted unanimously Tuesday night to send a proposed tobacco retailing license issue back to city staff to work out a schedule for fines for those who sell tobacco to minors.

That means a revised ordinance won’t be voted on until November, city administrator Dan Holler said.

While retailers were supportive of the idea to prohibit the sale of tobacco products to those under the age of 18, many balked Tuesday when faced with the prospect of additional fees for a city license ensuring they have the right to sell tobacco products in the city.

Police Chief John Foster said a fee for licensing will allow his department to spend the money and staff time necessary to enforce state law. Without the yearly license fee — which could be anywhere from $100 to $200 annually — it’s likely his department could not afford to do yearly inspections of the more than 35 tobacco retailers in Grass Valley.

“I think we all agree (the license) makes sense,” Foster said. “The challenge is that there are additional licenses and fees the retailer must bear.”

The tobacco licensing issue was brought to light by the Nevada County Tobacco Use Prevention Youth and Adult Coalition. The group has conducted surveys gauging whether retailers sell tobacco products to minors.

Foster said the issue of underage smoking is consistently among the chief concerns of residents in an annual police attitude survey.

Lowell Robinson, whose holdings include a convenience store at the corner of Bennett and East Main Street, said he is supportive of the ordinance, “but I am afraid of more rules and regulations and fees and taxes that go with it.”

Mitch Garber, an employee who works at both Flyers convenience stores in Grass Valley, said his business already pays between $2,500 and $3,000 yearly for various licenses, including a license to operate by the state Board of Equalization.

Cigarettes, with their high taxes, “are a loss leader for us at this point,” he said.

While the council supported the idea, member Dan Miller said he didn’t want to put the burden on the retailer selling the product — but on the employee who does.

“We’re asking the retailer to pay more, we’re asking them to get another license … Every time you turn around, there’s another government regulation, another fee, and it ticks me off,” Miller said.

Yolanda Cookson said the city should remain focused on taking care of Grass Valley’s youth, and that the ordinance would help do that.

“The city needs teeth with this, to show the people that we care about the youth of Grass Valley,” she said.

© Copyright: September 23, 2009 Theunion

CIGARETTE sales should be banned from pubs and clubs, say anti-smoking campaigners, who point to the results of world-first research carried out in Sydney.

The combination of being in the company of smokers at a venue where tobacco is also for sale softens the resolve of would-be quitters and can turn a one-off cigarette into a full-blown relapse, a study has found.

Wendy Oakes, tobacco control manager for the Cancer Council NSW, which funded the research, said long-term smokers would not be disadvantaged if cigarettes were removed from sale in licensed premises.

”Smokers have very habitual buying patterns. Smokers don’t run out of cigarettes,” she said.

Such a move would instead ‘’support people to keep the resolve they’ve already made … not constantly harassing people and tempting them” as they tried to quit.

The new results revealed ”a very strong association amongst people who said they had quit between having a cigarette and buying a pack of cigarettes”, Ms Oakes said.

Outdoor smoking areas in otherwise smoke-free pubs meant people ”clustered there in social groups [allowing] people to continue to smoke in very socialised ways”, and borrowing a cigarette from a friend could quickly lead to a purchase.

Cigarette machines in pubs may be operated only by token and only by a staff member, but this might not be enough to break the nexus, Ms Oakes said.

”We would like to see vending machines removed from pubs and clubs because the work done shows that it is a trigger area,” she said.

In world-first research, Suzan Burton from the Macquarie Graduate School of Management asked smokers intending to quit to record their smoking and cigarette purchases in a diary over four days.

She found they were much more likely than non-quitting smokers to buy them at bottle shops and bars rather than supermarkets, suggesting impulse buying.

Their smoking was disproportionately influenced by the presence of other smokers. If family or friends smoked around them, they were three times as likely to light up.

”Allowing cigarettes to be sold in pubs is allowing people to be targeted at their most vulnerable,” said Associate Professor Burton, a consumer behaviour expert who conducted the study with colleague Lindie Clark.

Tobacco availability seemed to conspire with alcohol and relaxation to knock people off the wagon and stopping such sales ”might be a relatively efficient method of preventing relapse”.

The study is the first to track the behaviour of people as they try to give up smoking, letting the researchers see how consumption aligned with cigarette availability and social behaviour. Previous research has been based on quitters’ retrospective recollections, which are notoriously unreliable.

Most smokers say they would prefer not to smoke. About half make a quit attempt in any six-month period.

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald

Business was brisk Monday at the Tobacco Outlet Plus store on Wausau’s 17th Avenue as customers stocked up on cigarettes in anticipation of today’s 75-cent-per-pack tax increase.

The surge was expected. Historically, Tobacco Outlet stores across the state saw similar sales prior to previous tax increases, said Steve Loehr, vice president of operations support for Kwik Trip, the parent company of the Tobacco Outlet stores.

But managers don’t expect the robust sales to continue. “We anticipate a 25 percent to 40 percent decrease in (tobacco) sales” because of the tax hike as smokers either buy tobacco elsewhere or quit, Loehr said.

That’s good news for the overall health of the state, said Maureen Busalacchi, executive director of SmokeFree Wisconsin. If this tax increase causes smokers to react as they did in the past, more people will quit the habit, she said.

Perhaps. But the hike won’t persuade Jarrod Lamberg, 31, of Edgar. He plans to pay more for cigarettes in the future.

“I’m just sick of the government trying to balance the budget on the backs of smokers,” said Lamberg, who was buying a carton of smokes at the Tobacco Outlet on Monday. He has been smoking a pack a day since he was in sixth grade, and he’s tried many methods to quit,
including patches, medication and hypnosis. But he has always turned back to cigarettes, and he doesn’t expect the tax increase to change his habit.

Busalacchi said 40,000 people called the state’s Tobacco Quit Line in 2008 after the state increased its cigarette tax by $1 per pack. That was up from about 9,000 callers in 2007.

“The evidence is clear. It doesn’t matter who raises the price, whether it be the tobacco companies or from taxes; more quit or don’t get started after the price goes up,” Busalacchi said. “It usually takes more than one quit attempt to actually quit.”

Vivian Detert, 72, of Wausau visited the Tobacco Outlet on Monday to buy loose tobacco, a cigarette-rolling machine and rolling papers — her answer to the rising cost of smoking.

She’s been trying to quit for years, and has cut her habit to a half a pack a day, down from three packs a day. “I’m always working on it,” she said.

Still, she thinks it’s unfair that the state keeps increasing tobacco taxes.

Her husband, Ron Detert, 75, feels the same way. “I quit 30 years ago, but I think this is a crock,” he said.

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on launched its tobacco center to oversee cigarettes and other related products, tapping a former veterans’ health official to lead the effort.

Lawrence Deyton, who led public health programs at the veterans’ department as its chief public health and environmental hazards officer, helped boost efforts to curb smoking among military veterans, the FDA said.

Deyton, a George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences professor, also previously worked at the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services.

The FDA tobacco center, established by law in June, is charged with regulating cigarettes and other tobacco products. It will oversee the manufacturing and marketing of such items, including regulating ingredients and establishing advertising rules.

Makers include Altria Group Inc’s Philip Morris unit, Reynolds American Inc’s R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. Lorillard Inc’s Lorillard Tobacco Co and Star Scientific Inc.

In setting up the center, FDA said it was using $5 million from the agency’s fiscal year 2009 budget to begin administrative work. The agency will begin collecting user fees from the industry as soon as October to help fund the center.

Deyton and other new tobacco center employees will have years of work ahead of them as they move to issue new regulations, industry rules and other actions called for under the law, which has deadlines stretching out as far as 2015.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which campaigned for FDA power over tobacco products, echoed other advocacy groups in welcoming Deyton as a sign of the agency “moving quickly and vigorously to implement its new authority to regulate tobacco products.”

At the Veterans Administration, Deyton helped increase use of veteran smoking cessation programs and eliminated the sale of tobacco products at VA facilities, the advocacy group said.

Alberta’s smoking rate is among the highest in the country. Manitoba has the highest smoking rate in the country at 20.8%, while British Columbia boasts the lowest at just over 14%.

However, new figures suggest fewer adolescents and women are lighting up, with Statistics Canada reporting Thursday, nationally, the number of smokers has dipped from 25% in 1996 to 18% in 2005. Since then, the decline has flattened, prompting some to wonder if anti-smoking campaigns are losing their impact.

Blaming the widespread availability of contraband cigarettes, Rob Cunningham, a senior policy analyst for the Canadian Cancer Society is concerned that percentage remains the same, showing a slowing down of declining smoking rates.

Talking to the Canadian Press from Ottawa, Cunningham said cheap cigarettes i. e. 80 to 90% off, are adversely impacting how fast smoking rates are declining, with contraband tobacco selling for as little as $6 for 200-cigarettes.

Close to a third or 28% of current smokers in Ontario said, in the last six months prior to a 2007 / 2008 survey by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, they had recently bought at least one pack of contraband cigarettes.

‘Cheap cigarettes entice young people to start smoking and discourage smokers from quitting,’ said Susan Whelan, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society’s Ontario Division.

The annual Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey of 20,000 people also suggests, the smoking rate for women aged 25-plus dropped from 18% in 2007 to 15% last year.

Nearly half or 48% of adults aged 20 to 24 and just under one-third or 31% of teens aged 15 to 19 said they had tried little cigars or cigarillos, which come in flavours like peach and candy, coming on the market in the last 10 years or so.

Thirty days before being surveyed, 12% of those in the 20 to 24 e group and 9% of the 15 to 19-year olds had smoked a little cigar or cigarillo.

The Senate already has a bill before it banning the little cigars and cigarillos.

Last year, the government in Alberta banned smoking in all public places and work sites, including putting drastic restrictions on tobacco displays at convenience stores. Effective 1st January 2008, pharmacies and grocery stores carrying pharmaceuticals were prohibited from selling tobacco except in gas stations, mall kiosks or separate enclosed spaces.


Copyright © 2009 Visitbulgaria

Nearly half of Vallejo’s tobacco shops could be asked to relocate if a proposed city ordinance is adopted.

City staff members have been working with community members for more than two years on regulations limiting where tobacco shops can locate, who they can hire, store hours and how those laws could be enforced.

In recent months, a Planning Division ordinance was drafted and has been shopped to the community twice.

On Wednesday, city staff members said at a John F. Kennedy Library meeting they had responded to some concerns by expanding proposed off-limit zones for tobacco shops and applying restrictions similar to those on stores selling alcohol. The new concessions were still short of an enforcement mechanism, which will require city Planning Commission and City Council approval before becoming law.

Staff members said they are limited in setting fees to pay for enforcement, and in how quickly they can ask existing store owners, about a dozen in all, to relocate.

Community members asked that the ordinance require tobacco shops to leave immediately, instead of after five years. They also asked that a fee be assessed on all business owners selling tobacco — including larger and convenience stores — and alcohol retailers. Money raised would pay for legal and police enforcement.

Planning Division Director Michelle Hightower said council members had also given specific direction in March 2007, when they enacted a moratorium on new tobacco
Advertisement
shops.

Community members asked that the ordinance require tobacco shops to leave immediately, instead of after five years. They also asked that a fee be assessed on all business owners selling tobacco — including larger and convenience stores — and alcohol retailers. Money raised would pay for legal and police enforcement.

The ordinance is expected to go before the Planning Commission in September.


Copyright © 2009 Contracostatimes

A smoking ban comes into force in the Brazilian state of São Paulo on Friday, adding to what has become one of the world’s toughest anti-smoking campaigns.

Brazil was among the first countries in the world to print disturbing images on cigarette packs in an effort to persuade smokers not to light up. The images, in use since 2001, have coincided with a steady fall in the number of smokers in the country, from 34 per cent of the adult population in 1989 to 15 per cent last year, although the part played by the images is hard to gauge.

The ban in São Paulo state is being introduced by governor José Serra, who as health minister was responsible for the nationwide on-pack campaign.

Smoking bans have been tried in São Paulo city in the past but they were half-hearted affairs that expired under legal challenges and public indifference. This time, the state government says 90 per cent of the population supports the ban, which will outlaw smoking in all public or private spaces “of collective use”, such as bars, restaurants, shops, offices and shared areas in apartment buildings.

It will be enforced by fines on establishments of about R$800 to R$1,600 for first offences, rising thereafter. But the state says it will rely as much on support as enforcement. About 80 per cent of bars and restaurants have already implemented the ban, the state said, which is supported by a majority of smokers as well as non-smokers.

In spite of what appears to be the success of Brazil’s on-pack campaign, doubts remain about its effectiveness and new images introduced in May are especially disturbing. Only three – the least disturbing of a new set of 10 – are in widespread use, although from this week all 10 will be in circulation.

Initial research suggests the new images are having an impact. In a poll carried out in three big Brazilian cities by the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project, an organisation of tobacco control researchers, 62 per cent of smokers said the warnings made them think about the dangers of smoking, 48 per cent said they made them more likely to quit, and 39 per cent said they had decided not to light up after looking at the images during the previous 30 days.

But the ITC also warned that smokers habitually avoided looking at the images – printed only on the back of packs – by leaving their packs face up, and called for them to be printed both front and back.

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

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

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

The license could be revoked after a hearing.

The license suspension depends on the circumstances, Piscia said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philip Morris announced a deal to buy the South African business of Sweden’s Match for 1.75 billion South African Rand (~ USD $222 million), in an attempt to increase its share into smokeless tobacco products. Match South Africa manufacturers snuff and pipe tobacco products, which account for a third of all tobacco use in South Africa. The company is looking for higher growth areas in the tobacco consumption space as cigarette volumes continue to decline.

One day after signing legislation giving the government unprecedented power to regulate tobacco, President Barack Obama is admitting that he’s sometimes “fallen off the wagon” in his own effort to stop smoking.

Obama told reporters Tuesday that he’s “95 percent cured.” But he added that “there are times where I mess up.”

He said he’s not a “daily” or “constant” smoker, and that he doesn’t smoke in front of his kids.

But he said that just like with alcoholics, it’s something you “continually struggle with.”

Obama said that’s why the anti-smoking legislation is so important — because he doesn’t want “kids to go down that path to begin with.”

Politicians have extraordinary shoulder joints that enable them to pat themselves on the back, and last week the president, a master of that calisthenic, performed it in the Rose Garden. His subject — aside from himself, as usual — was the bill by which Congress authorized the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. The president called this “a bill that truly defines change in Washington” and “changes the way Washington works and who Washington works for.”

Our leaders are often wrong but rarely so precisely wrong. In two important particulars, the bill is a crystalline example of Washington business as usual – the protection of the strong. The bill was supported by America’s biggest tobacco company and by the Democratic Party’s fountain of funds, the trial bar.

Congress could ban cigarettes; therefore it could ban tobacco advertising. Instead, tobacco advertising and promotions will be even more severely curtailed. These restrictions merit a constitutional challenge. Although commercial speech does not receive full First Amendment protection, Congress should not be allowed to effectively prohibit truthful communication about a legal product. Philip Morris, however, can live — indeed, can flourish — with the new restrictions on the marketing measures by which less powerful companies might threaten its dominance. And lest courts conclude that companies cannot be sued for behavior (selling cigarettes) governed, hence authorized, by a regulatory body, the bill stipulates that it shall not be construed to limit “the liability of any person under the product liability law of any state.”

Government policy regarding tobacco, as regarding so much else, is contradictory and unlovely. Nevertheless, it has been, on balance, a success: Americans are behaving much more sensibly.
ad_icon

Before the surgeon general declared tobacco addictive (1988) and carcinogenic (1964), before a character in a 1906 O. Henry story asked, “Say, sport, have you got a coffin nail on you?” people intuitively understood that inhaling smoke is unhealthy. Smoking is addictive (although there are about as many ex-smokers as smokers), sickening, often fatal and usually childish: Ninety percent of all smokers start by age 18; few start after 21. But death and intelligence cost the companies 6,000 customers a day, so that many new smokers must be made daily just to keep up.

Ironies abound. The February expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is supposed to be financed by increased tobacco taxes, so this health care depends on an ample and renewable supply of smokers. State governments, increasingly addicted to tobacco tax revenue, face delicate price calculations: They want to raise their regressive tobacco taxes (smokers are disproportionately low income and poorly educated) to just below where smokers are driven to quit.

Governments cannot loot tobacco companies that do not flourish. In a 1998 settlement, 46 states conspired to seize $206 billion from companies selling legal tobacco products made from a commodity subsidized by the governments that subsidize treatment of tobacco-related illnesses. The dubious premise of the settlement was that smoking costs governments substantial sums. Actually, tobacco is the most heavily taxed consumer good (Rhode Island’s tax is $3.46 per pack) and the accurate actuarial assumptions of public and private pension plans are that premature deaths of smokers will save billions in payments.

In the early 1950s, the sponsor of anchorman John Cameron Swayze’s “Camel News Caravan” on NBC television required him to have a lit cigarette constantly visible. Today smokers are pariahs in a country the Father of which was a tobacco farmer. Someday the ashtray may be as anachronistic as the spittoon, but fear of death may be a milder deterrent to smoking than is the fact that smoking is dumb and déclassé. Dumb? Would you hire a smoker, who must be either weak-willed or impervious to evidence? Déclassé? Twenty years ago, California cut smoking 17 percent with commercials such as: “I tried it twice and I, ah, got all red in the face and I couldn’t inhale and I felt like a jerk and, ah, never tried it again, which is the same as what happened to me with sex.”

Three decades ago, public outrage killed an automobile model (Ford’s Pinto) whose design defects allegedly caused 59 deaths. Yet every year tobacco kills more Americans than did World War II — more than AIDS, cocaine, heroin, alcohol, vehicular accidents, homicide and suicide combined.

In the time it takes to read this column, three Americans will die of smoking-related illnesses. If you tarry to savor the column’s lovely prose, four will die, so read fast.
Copyright © 2009 Washingtonpost

Humana of Ohio will require all new employees who smoke to quit the habit.

The insurer, which employs more than 1,200 people at its new headquarters in Walnut Hills and hundreds more at a distribution center in West Chester, said Monday it would give all new employees a questionnaire.

• Poll: Do you agree with the policy?
• Data Center: Updated smoking complaints
• See discussion on CincyMomsLikeMe.com

If the workers use tobacco, they will have 31 days to enroll in a program called Breathe.

The company said the new requirements are part of a continuing commitment to employee wellness programs to shave costs and improve productivity.

Humana joins a small but growing group of companies who say they will not hire smokers. Last year USI, the Downtown insurance and financial services company, made the same decision to cut its health-care costs. Nationally, the Scotts Miracle-Gro lawn-care company and the Cleveland Clinic have started similar programs.

Companies can spend millions of dollars every year on their health-insurance plans.

It is not an issue in Kentucky, which has a law making smokers a protected class.

Refusing to hire smokers there would be illegal.

BAHRAIN is stepping up its ban on smoking in public places, with restaurants first in the firing line.

Restaurants which have failed to designate separate, sealed-off areas for smokers are being served final warnings, it was revealed yesterday.

Action is also underway to extend the ban soon to all workplaces (including ministries) as wells as hotels, said primary care and public health assistant under-secretary Dr Mariam Al Jalahma.

Thousands of people caught smoking in closed public places have already been warned and in future offenders may be fined, she said.

“While no place has yet been fined or closed down for violating the law, the notices make it clear they have to comply or face closure,” said Dr Al Jalahma.

She said the authorities had given six months’ grace to restaurants and were now checking all of them to see if they had complied.

“In many cases, those who have finished the six-month period but have not complied, have been given a final ultimatum. This may last a few weeks at the most,” said Dr Al Jalahma.

The grace period for different restaurants will expire at different times during the year.

“We hope by the end of the year, all restaurants will have complied,” she said.

Violators could face fines of up to BD1,000, or closure if they continue to offend, under a new draft law signed by Health Minister Dr Faisal Al Hamer in February.

Dr Al Jalahma said many of the nearly 7,000 restaurants had already started implementing the directive.

The new rule also stipulates that children must not be allowed into smoking areas, even if they are accompanied by an adult.

Dr Al Jalahma said more than 7,000 under-18s had been caught smoking at various public places in Bahrain by health inspectors in the first four months of the year and were reported to their parents.

More than 5,000 smokers caught breaking the ban in malls were also told to stub out their cigarettes by health inspectors, working with security staff.

Another 1,500 men and 100 women were warned for smoking in no-smoking areas in other buildings, such as restaurants. Twenty per cent of Bahrainis are smokers, according to the latest survey, said Dr Al Jalahma. mandeep@gdn.com.bh

Copyright 2009 Gulf-daily-news

Anti-smoking group Ash Scotland called the thousands of smokers dying in Scotland every year “silent victims”.

Chief executive Sheila Duffy said: “If someone is killed in a road accident, murdered, takes their own life or dies as a result of poisoning, it’s newsworthy .

“The 13,500 Scots who die from tobacco-related illnesses every year are the silent victims of a major health epidemic. One in four Scottish deaths are estimated to be smoking-related.”

Speaking at the Royal Environmental Health Institute of Scotland’s Annual Conference in Ayr today, Ms Duffy was

due to accuse tobacco firms of “fighting tooth and nail” to stop politicians legislating against advertising which gets young Scots hooked on cigarettes, adding: “We know the overwhelming majority of existing smokers became addicted in their teens.”

There is a long battle ahead between wealthy tobacco firms and health organisations with few resources, she was to say.

Everyone is breathing a little easier in the new Zell era. Well, everyone who smokes that is. The Trib has decided to stop charging smokers a fee for lighting up:

From: Tribune Communications Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 1:32 PM Subject: Message from Gerry Spector/Tobacco Use Fee Rescinded

Since the closing of the going-private transaction last December, we’ve been reviewing policies and practices across the company, including Tribune’s healthcare benefits. While well-intentioned, we think the tobacco-use fee implemented by the previous management team is inconsistent with the new culture we’re developing—we’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you.

This policy was a part of open enrollment last fall and took effect January 1, 2008. I’m pleased to tell you that we’re eliminating this fee effective April 28th.

If you successfully participated in the smoking cessation program, have quit and been reimbursed for all fees, then congratulations are in order. Quitting is one of the hardest things you’ll ever do.

If you’re still being charged the fee, it will stop and Tribune will reimburse you 100 percent for the fees you have paid. This reimbursement will occur in late May.

Tribune will continue to offer the smoking cessation program free of charge to all employees and their covered dependents age 18 and older.

The spousal medical fee, implemented at the same time, will remain in place. We believe that if an employee’s spouse has access to coverage through his/her employer, that employer has the primary responsibility to bear the cost of coverage. Our obligation is to take care of our own employees, first and foremost.

Source: Mediabistro

A fire swept through a shelter for homeless and poor families in northwest Poland yesterday, killing 21 people and forcing parents to toss children from windows into the arms of rescuers below.

A resident of the shelter said the fire that destroyed the two-storey building in the town of Kamien Pomorski might have been caused by someone who fell asleep with a lit cigarette.

“Twenty-one people are dead,” said Daniel Kowalinski, a spokesman for firefighters at the scene of the blaze.

A further 21 people were in hospital, one with serious injuries. An 18-month-old child was among those hurt but was in satisfactory condition, a local doctor said.

“The injured were mainly people who fled the burning two-storey building even before the firefighters arrived,” national fire service spokesman Pawel Fratczak said. Many of those injured had jumped from the hostel windows, and suffered fractures from their fall.

The fire broke out about 1am (9am AEST) in a refuge where at least 77 people were staying.

Firefighters were still searching through the ruins last night, and the cause of the fire had not been determined. Police and prosecutors were investigating.

“The fire spread at an incredible speed,” Mr Kowalinski told TVN24. “Firefighters had to catch children thrown through windows by their parents.”

Prime Minister Donald Tusk travelled to Kamien Pomorski, and President Lech Kaczynski declared a period of national mourning beginning at midnight. The President also planned to visit the area.

The building was built in the 1970s as a workers’ hostel.

Source: Theaustralian.news

Most of us have our personal crusades. One of Deb Schallert’s involves cigarette butts.

Schallert works for Portland General Electric. But for 14 years, she worked for Oregon state parks. That meant she picked up hundreds of butts, from Detroit Lake to Silver Falls to South Beach in Newport.

She lived in Japan in 1989 and 1990 as part of a government employee exchange. The Japanese carried pocket ashtrays to temporarily store cigarette butts. She didn’t see many on the ground.

Somehow, Schallert came to realize, generally anti-litter Americans have concluded that cigarette butts aren’t litter at all.

She’s out to change that.

Schallert, backed by Oregon Rep. Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie, is behind House Bill 2676. The half-page bill would make it a Class B misdemeanor to knowingly toss a butt, cigarette or cigar.

The penalty would be a fine or, perhaps more karmicly consistent, community service that includes clearing property of cigarettes, cigars and filters “unlawfully deposited on the property.”

“I see Oregon as an environmental leader, with the beach bill, with the bottle bill,” says Schallert, 56. “I’d like to reach a consensus that (tossing cigarette butts) is not OK. If you’re the person cleaning it up, you really notice it.”

Cigarette butts are small, but they’re not a small problem.

The Ocean Conservancy, which coordinates cleanups worldwide, says they’re the No. 1 littered item on the globe. Cleanup volunteers picked up 3.2 million in 2008 from beaches and inland waterways.

They don’t biodegrade — the filters, for example, look like cotton, but they’re actually plastic filaments. Animals, particularly birds, like to eat them. And they contain hazardous ingredients that could harm aquatic organisms.

Some communities, including San Diego and Hawaii County, have banned smoking on beaches or in parks. Some have handed out pocket ashtrays and posted anti-littering billboards. Others, particularly in England and Australia, are more aggressively pursuing cigarette-smoking litterbugs.

Oregon has a law against “offensive littering.”

But it doesn’t specifically call out cigarette butts.

This is the third time in five years that Schallert has tried for a cigarette butt bill. Tomei said she thinks the bill has a chance this time around. It’s scheduled for a hearing Tuesday in the House environment and water committee.

There are likely to be questions of whether it’s a law enforcement priority. But the biggest objection will probably be that it’s expanding the “nanny state,” Tomei said.

She got her political start trying to clean up Elk Rock Island in the Willamette River. She and her husband visited the island earlier this month and still found cigarette butts littering the shore.

“If you choose to smoke, you need to be responsible for the trash that comes with it,” Tomei said. “That’s not too much to ask of people.”

Schallert says she’s not out to get smokers. She’s hoping for the same change in attitude she’s seen among dog owners, who she thinks are much more likely to pick up pet waste in parks and on sidewalks than they were 10 years ago.

Schallert has had some legislative success. She backed a bill in 1997 that increased penalties for boating hit-and-run accidents. That same year, the House passed a joint resolution she backed for a state parks day. Both documents are on the wall of her Southwest Portland home.

“I’d always like to think maybe this is the year,” Schallert said of her cigarette butt bill. “I also just like participating in the legislative process. If I have an idea, I’d rather act on it than sit around and do nothing.”

Source: Oregonlive

Researches from Canada are not sure yet that electronic cigarettes are safer than cigarettes. That’s why they advice smokers do no purchase or use electronic smoking products, which may pose health risks and have not been fully evaluated for safety and quality. And they also have instructed businesses not to promote or sell them until the government will evaluate their safety.
Scientists added that the products such as – electronic cigarettes, cigars, cigarillos and pipes, as well as cartridges of nicotine solutions and related products – require market authorization before they can be imported, advertised or sold.
In Canada, electronic smoking products have no market authorization yet.  However in recent months, a number of electronic smoking products have been marketed in Canada and through the Internet too.
All electronic smoking products use a battery-powered system that vaporized a liquid chemical mixture that may be composed of various amounts of nicotine, propylene glycol and other chemicals.
Health Canada said: “Nicotine is a highly addictive and toxic substance, and the inhalation of propylene glycol is a known irritant. Although these electronic smoking products may be marketed as a safer alternative to conventional tobacco products and, in some cases, as an aid to quitting smoking, electronic smoking products may pose risks such as nicotine poisoning and addiction.”
Health Canada prohibit electronic smoking products, instead of this it has approved the sale of such nicotine-containing smoking-cessation aids as gum, patches, inhalers and lozenges.
Electronic smoking products must be kept away from children, who are at risk for choking or nicotine poisoning, added Canadian scientists.
Canadians who have used e-cigarette products and are concerned about their health should consult a health-care doctor.

Source: Cigarettesworld.com

Smokers and chewers could discover on April 1 that the health of their pocketbooks may be at risk with the increase of federal taxes on their favorite tobacco products. The recent expansion of a federal children’s health program could insure as many as 11 million youngsters, but the almost $33 billion piece of legislation will have tobacco consumers footing the bill.

On April 1, a 61-cents-per-pack increase will be added to cigarettes, bringing the total federal tax to about $1, from 39 cents. Consumers also will see tax increases on other tobacco products, including a jump of more than 30 percent for large cigars, an increase of about 7 cents for moist snuff and a spike of nearly $1.50 on roll-your-own tobacco.

Although New Mexico now imposes a tax of about 91 cents per pack of cigarettes, recently-introduced legislation aimed to further increase the state tax. The bill, sponsored by state Rep. Roberto Gonzales, D-Taos, was tabled in the House Taxation and Revenue Committee and never voted on.

About 17.3 percent, or 24,027, of Doña Ana County’s residents are smokers, according to research conducted by the state Department of Health’s Tobacco Use Prevention and Control Program based on 2006 population figures.

“That accounts for 8 percent of the smokers in the state, said David Tompkins, spokesman for the program. The county’s smoking prevalence rate is lower than the state average of almost 21 percent, likely, he said, because “Doña Ana County

has had strong comprehensive clean indoor air policies in place longer than the state.”

This figure could further decline with the implementation of a higher federal tax on tobacco products, according to research by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

“Price definitely has a huge effect on people’s decision to quit smoking,” Tompkins claimed.

“We’re definitely pleased to see things moving in that direction,” he added of the tax hike.

According to the U.S. Surgeon General, raising cigarette taxes is one of the most effective tobacco-prevention strategies, with the increases leading to “substantial long-run improvements in health.” Tax hikes may also decrease the youth cigarette demand by up to 15 percent.

However, despite the benefit of more New Mexicans deciding to quit the habit, Tompkins said, “If people quit, some agencies funded with that tax money would be harmed.”

Revenue from the state tax is distributed to the County and Municipality Recreational Fund, the University of New Mexico Cancer Research & Treatment Center and the Rural County Cancer Treatment Fund, according to Tompkins.

To aid in the continued funding for such programs, Tompkins said he is in favor of increased state taxes on tobacco products.

“It’s a pretty smart bill,” he said of the state legislation introduced in the recent session.

New Mexico is ranked No. 11 for funding tobacco prevention programs in the 2009 fiscal year, according to a study by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

All Tobacco Use Prevention and Control programs, including (800) QUIT-NOW, the state’s cessation assistance hot line, are funded by a settlement several states won against tobacco companies to recover costs associated with the consumption of tobacco products.

Other tobacco products are taxed at about 25 percent of the total value by the state, he said.

New Mexico began receiving payments through the Master Settlement Agreement in 2000.

Despite the potential cost to state programs, Mark Smith, spokesman for Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, producer of Natural American Spirit cigarettes, said, “The consumer will bear the brunt of it.”

“It’s the highest tax on any consumer good,” he said. “Unfortunately, smokers are a group of individuals that have been unfairly singled-out.”

More commonly known brands such as Camel and Marlboro could be more affected by the tax hike than the smaller, Santa Fe-based company, Smith said.

Because consumers of Natural American Spirit cigarettes are typically “from high-education, high-income groups” Smith said they are less likely to quit smoking the brand simply because of price.

Local tobacco retailers were likewise optimistic.

“There will probably be a decline (in sales), but not as much as people think, said Onola Corradini, a clerk at Bradley Petroleum, 1260 El Paseo Road. “Smokers are smokers, and while they might cut back by a pack or so a week, they’ll stay with it.” A smoker herself, Corradini said she, like many consumers, uses coupons manufacturers issue online to purchase her favorite brand at a cheaper price.

“It sucks, said Dennis Murphy, 51, while handing over $5.09 for a pack of Marlboro 100s from the gas station. “I remember when cigarettes were 35 cents a pack,” said Murphy, who has smoked since he was 11 years old. “It’s a nasty habit, but they (tobacco companies) catered to us kids when I was young, telling us, “Come to where the flavor is.’”

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has just ruled that cigarette smokers in that state are eligible to use a state consumer protection law to sue Philip Morris Inc. for how it marketed Marlboro Lights, the Associated Press reported.

The AP noted that the recent ruling is very similar to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling this past December, which allows class-action lawsuit initiated by smokers claiming deceptive marketing. The high court ruling said the 1965 Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act does not protect cigarette makers from fraud lawsuits over how those makers market cigarettes they describe as “light” or “low tar.” Also, according to an earlier Bloomberg.com report, the high court said federal oversight of cigarette testing did not preclude those lawsuits.

Millions of Americans have smoked “low-tar,” “mild,” or “light” cigarettes, believing those cigarettes to be less harmful than others; however, many were falsely marketed as “safe” or “harmless.” As a matter-of-fact, a variety of studies found “light” cigarettes to be as dangerous as other varieties and, even more incriminating, a more than 30-year-old Philip Morris memo from 1975 was made public in 2007 that proved cigarette makers were aware that smokers of light cigarettes took longer puffs and inhaled larger amounts of tar than those who smoked other versions. The controversy has generated dozens of lawsuits claiming billions of dollars in damages.

The U.S. Supreme Court case allows smokers to use state laws to sue cigarette makers for how they promote so-called “light” and “low tar” cigarettes. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, citing the high court decision, said smokers can sue Altria Group Inc.’s Philip Morris for deceptive marketing practices, reported the AP. The 1998 suit claimed Philip Morris used deceptive marketing because its Marlboro Lights did not provide lower tar and nicotine, said the AP.

Philip Morris had argued that the Massachusetts consumer protection law is pre-empted by the 1965 Act, banning states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising involving smoking and health, said the AP. Philip Morris also argued that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) allows the use of terms such as “light” and “lower tar and nicotine” on cigarette packages and claims the Act, which required tobacco companies to place rotating warnings on their packaging and advertising, pre-empted such lawsuits. Philip Morris stopped using the phrase “lower tar and nicotine” on packages in 2003.

The state’s Supreme Judicial Court said the FTC did not specifically allow those categorizations, saying the labels did little but fool smokers into thinking they faced less of a health risk, the LA Times said in an earlier article. The FTC allows cigarette companies to use the classifications as long as they are determined by a standardized system that uses a machine that smokes cigarettes the same way every time. But people are not like machines, and some take deeper breaths and larger puffs than others. It is also well-recognized that smokers who switch from regular to light cigarettes “compensate” for the decreased nicotine by inhaling more deeply; taking larger, more rapid, or more frequent puffs; or increasing the number of cigarettes smoked daily, thus negating any potential benefit of smoking a “low-tar” cigarette. The FTC itself has raised concerns about its testing methods and has admitted in prior congressional testimony that its “ratings tend to be relatively poor predictors of tar and nicotine exposure.”

Although the lawsuit can proceed, smokers must prove the descriptors violate the state’s consumer protection law, said the AP.