LONG-TIME bitter competitors Fortune Tobacco of taipan Lucio Tan and Philip Morris have agreed to bury the hatchet and merge their manufacturing and marketing operations in the Philippines, the Manila Standard Today has confirmed.

The merged company, tentatively called PMFTC, will control 92 percent of the still growing Philippine tobacco market.

Philip Morris has scheduled a press conference this noon “to announce a major development that will impact the Philippine tobacco industry,” with no less than Asia-Pacific president Matteo Pellegrini, Tan, and Philip Morris Philippines managing director Chris Nelson attending.

According to sources close to the transaction, the merged company will be controlled by Philip Morris by virtue of its 50-percent-plus one share majority in the new company.

The same sources said the merger was facilitated by Tan’s younger brother, Harry, who was worried about the succession problems that could befall the multi-billion empire given the bitter feud between Lucio Tan, who is turning 76 this year, and the second brother, Mariano Tanenglian.

With the merger, Philip Morris and Fortune Tobacco will effectively divide the Philippine market between themselves, with the US tobacco giant controlling the higher end with its Marlboro cigarettes and Philip Morris brands, and Fortune with its Hope, Fortune, Champion and Boss cigarettes.

Philip Morris maintains a regional manufacturing facility in a 25-hectare complex in Tanauan City, Batangas.

The Tanauan factory, inaugurated in May 2003, can roll out up to 40 billion cigarette sticks a year.

Philip Morris International Inc. today announced that Philip Morris Philippines Manufacturing Inc. (PMPMI), an affiliate of PMI, and Fortune Tobacco Corporation (FTC), have signed an agreement to unite their respective business activities by transferring selected assets and liabilities of PMPMI and FTC to a new company to be called PMFTC, with each party holding an equal economic interest. The Chairman of PMFTC will be Mr. Lucio Tan, currently Chairman of FTC. PMI will manage the day-to-day operations of PMFTC.

PMFTC is poised to benefit from the complementary nature of each shareholder’s brand portfolio and the cost synergies derived from the integration of manufacturing, procurement and distribution. Both companies have contributed their trademarks to PMFTC which will also manufacture Marlboro and Philip Morris under long-term license agreements.

“This transaction is a tremendous strategic fit for our business that will cement our leadership in South East Asia,” said Matteo Pellegrini, President of PMI’s Asia Region. “We firmly believe it will provide us with the talent, infrastructure and expertise to further build our united portfolio of strong brands in this important cigarette market and will benefit the Philippines economy through the further development and expansion of tobacco growing, exports and investments in people and capital.”

PMFTC’s incremental contribution to PMI’s earnings per share in 2010, a year which will focus on integration, is expected to be immaterial. It is anticipated that PMFTC’s contribution to PMI’s earnings per share will be accretive in 2011, as cost synergies begin to be realized.

The Philippines is one of the largest global cigarette markets with an estimated 2009 volume of 85 billion cigarettes. FTC is one of the five largest privately-owned cigarette companies in the world. PMPMI is present mainly in the premium price segment, while FTC, with leading brands such as Fortune and Champion, which recorded an estimated combined market share of 46.8% in 2009, competes mainly in the value segment.

About Philip Morris International Inc.

Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) is the leading international tobacco company, with seven of the world’s top 15 brands, including Marlboro, the number one cigarette brand worldwide. PMI has more than 77,000 employees and its products are sold in approximately 160 countries. In 2009, the company held an estimated 15.4% share of the total international cigarette market outside of the U.S., or 26.0% excluding the People’s Republic of China and the U.S. For more information, see www.pmintl.com.

SOURCE: Philip Morris International Inc.

RICHMOND, Va.–The Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. today announced the election of John T. Casteen III to the Board of Directors. With the addition of Mr. Casteen, the Altria Board increases from nine to ten directors.

“With his broad public and private sector experience, I know he will make significant contributions.”

Mr. Casteen has served as the President of the University of Virginia since 1990. He will step down from that position on August 1, 2010 and become President Emeritus at that time.

“I am delighted to welcome John Casteen to our Board of Directors,” said Michael E. Szymanczyk, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Altria. “With his broad public and private sector experience, I know he will make significant contributions.”

Mr. Casteen previously served as the Dean of Admission at the University of Virginia from 1975 to 1982, Virginia Secretary of Education from 1982 to 1985, and president of the University of Connecticut from 1985 to 1990.

Mr. Casteen’s business career has included service as a director of the following companies: Connecticut Bank and Trust Company; New England Education Loan Marketing Corporation (Nellie Mae); Sallie Mae; Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Connecticut, Inc.; College Construction Loan Insurance Association (Connie Lee); Allied Concrete Company; Jefferson Bank Shares, Inc.; Jefferson National Bank; and Wachovia Corporation. He currently serves as director at Sage Publications, Inc.; Jefferson Science Associates, LLC; and the Virginia University Research Partnership, Inc.

Mr. Casteen has been a director of the American Council on Education, a director of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, trustee and chair of the College Entrance Examination Board, commissioner of the Education Commission of the States, member of the Board of Control for the Southern Regional Education Board, commissioner of the New England Board of Higher Education, and chair of the Association of Governing Boards’ council of presidents. From 1991 to 1993, he chaired the National Board on Oceans and Atmosphere. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation.

RICHMOND – Cigarette maker Altria Group Inc. said Thursday that it plans to expand its Marlboro Snus smokeless tobacco nationwide by the end of March as it looks to shore up its business as American smoke fewer cigarettes.

The Richmond-based owner of Philip Morris USA, which makes the top-selling Marlboro brand, began testing the product in select markets in 2007. Snus (pronounced “snoose”) are teabag-like pouches that users stick between their cheek and gum.

As tax increases, health concerns, smoking bans and social stigma continue cutting demand for cigarettes, Altria and other tobacco companies are seeking growth in cigarette alternatives – such as cigars, snuff and chewing tobacco – to keep customers.

In a presentation at a consumer analyst conference on Thursday, Altria’s Chief Executive Michael E. Szymanczyk said a significant number of consumers now switch between tobacco categories and use different kinds of tobacco products but offered no figures.

Altria said in recent years that cigarette volumes have declined by about 4 percent per year, while the smokeless tobacco segment has grown by about 7 percent per year. The company, which also sells Black & Mild cigars, said the machine-made large cigar category has grown about 3 percent per year.

In 2009, the industry estimates cigarette volumes fell about 8 percent, partly because of a 62-cents-per-pack federal tax increase that took effect in April and related price increases.

Still, smokeless tobacco is a small business compared with cigarettes, and smokers haven’t exactly embraced snus.

The nation’s tobacco companies made a collective $9.4 billion in profits last year for cigarettes, while profits for the smokeless segment, which includes snus, snuff and chewing tobacco, were about $1 billion, Szymanczyk said in the presentation. And there were an estimated 45 million adult smokers in the U.S. in 2008, compared with about 7 million smokeless tobacco users that year, according to figures from Altria’s Web site.

Last week, Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard Inc. announced that is was discontinuing a joint venture with Swedish Match for its Triumph Snus. Philip Morris USA had previously tested a smokeless, spitless tobacco product dubbed Taboka in 2006, which was later discontinued.

Meanwhile, Winston-Salem, N.C.-based Reynolds American Inc. rolled out its Camel Snus product nationally last year, after testing the product since 2006, and has said the product has gained popularity.

MICHAEL FELBERBAUM
February 18, 2010

NEW DELHI: India is just a step away from banning foreign investment in tobacco, shattering the plans of Japan Tobacco, BAT and the Altria Group, but leaving the field wide open for ITC to increase its dominance in the growing cigarette market. Finance minister Pranab Mukherjee, who was the last hurdle for the proposal from the health ministry, is now supporting the controversial ban, said a senior ministry official who is aware of the development. The finance ministry communicated its support to the ban through a communication dated February 3, 2010.

The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) will now approach the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs, or CCEA, the final authority, for the formal approval to ban foreign investments in tobacco. “We were awaiting finance ministry’s views on this matter,” said KK Modi, president and MD of the second-largest tobacco company, Godfrey Philips India, where Altria Group owns a 25% stake and the Indian promoters 46%. “Banning it permanently will give a jolt to the foreign players.”

After an acrimonious relationship spanning several years, the two have buried the hatchet and the local joint venture now has the right to manufacture the iconic Marlboro in India. Before that, it was sold through a separate company.

The move to ban foreign investments in tobacco has been controversial since the proposal came soon after Japan Tobacco announced its intention to raise its stake in the local unit to 74% from 50%. Also, British American Tobacco, the single largest shareholder in ITC, has seen its desire to take a controlling stake in the Indian unit thwarted consistently without any adequate reasoning. BAT holds about 32% in ITC, and the government-controlled LIC and Unit Trust of India’s government administrator are the other big shareholders.

The proposed ban may shut the door permanently on Japan Tobacco’s proposal to invest $100 million into its Indian subsidiary. Its proposal has been pending with the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) for about two years at least since the health ministry had proposed a ban on FDI in this sector.

The tobacco giant, owned by the Japanese government, had said that the proposal complies with the FDI policy since the new investment will not lead to capacity addition. India’s largest cigarette manufacturer, ITC, which has about three-fourths of market share in cigarettes and is the potential beneficiary from the ban, said it wouldn’t comment on the matter.

Nicotine addicts who have been dreaming of shifting to Camel or Salem from ITC’s Wills or Gold Flake, may have to wait for eternity if the CCEA puts its stamp of approval on the plan. But the lobbying by global firms may not end as yet given that it may be billions of dollars of revenue lost for multinational companies.

The current policy lacks clarity on whether FDI is allowed in the sector, though the government does not allow creation of fresh cigarette manufacture capacity. The health ministry has been batting for a complete ban on foreign investment and had objected to JTL’s proposal to allow even existing foreign investors to raise investment in subsidiaries.

The issue was then taken up by an inter-ministerial group (IMG) having representation from departments concerned, including health, DIPP, commerce, the Planning Commission and finance. The DIPP floated a formal Cabinet note after the IMG decided to support the ban on FDI.

A few words about a giant — Philip Morris USA, for instance — can echo in unexpected corners of Wall Street.

After the company that supplies Philip Morris with its cigarette paper revealed the tobacco giant is buying a small amount of paper from another firm, its stock lost more than a third of its value.

Wall Street decided Thursday and yesterday that Georgia-based Schweitzer-Mauduit International was worth $315 million less than it had thought, as versions of the story hit traders’ screens.

Philip Morris buys a bit more than $80 million a year of Schweitzer’s papers, a patented design that feature tiny bands that extinguish cigarettes when they are left to smolder.

Still, Wall Street’s reaction to Schweitzer’s quiet mention that Philip Morris would buy small amounts of printed paper from an importer underscored the Henrico County-based cigarette-maker’s dominance of the U.S. tobacco market.

“In isolation, lost volume at PM USA would have a modest earnings impact,” Goldman Sachs analyst Richard Skidmore said.

“The greater concern is that PM USA’s actions are followed by other cigarette manufacturers,” Skidmore said, adding that he expects Schweitzer’s “shares will struggle to regain momentum until after concerns around its [banded paper] relationship with PM USA and its patent lawsuit are resolved.”

In addition to disclosing Philip Morris was trying the importer’s paper on one of its discount brands, Schweitzer this week launched a patentinfringement lawsuit against four competitors.

Schweitzer is one of the world’s biggest cigarette-paper manufacturers, and its banded paper put it on the path for an even larger role, now that most states have passed laws requiring fire-safe cigarettes.

Philip Morris plans to finish converting its South Richmond manufacturing plant to use the banded paper by midyear.

Frederic Villoutreix, Schweitzer chairman and chief executive officer, said he believed Philip Morris was buying the imported paper in order to assess it, and because of the tobacco company’s concern that it not be completely reliant on a single manufacturer for its supply.

“The current volume involved is very, very small,” Villoutreix repeatedly told analysts on Thursday during a conference call.

Schweitzer said in a statement that it remains the sole supplier of a variety of paper it developed in cooperation with Philip Morris, though its agreement does allow Philip Morris to explore other alternatives to the patented product.

Schweitzer’s stock, which had started the week at about $70 a share, closed yesterday at $50.99, up $4.34.

By David Ress, Timesdispatch
February 13, 2010

THE more government knows about the ingredients in cigarettes, besides tobacco, the better it can assess the potential harm of those ingredients. In a progressive move to gain more information about tobacco product formulas, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is requiring tobacco companies to tell the agency exactly what goes into their products.

Companies have acknowledged using cocoa, coffee, menthol, and other additives to make tobacco taste better. But the FDA also wants to determine what ingredients they use that might make tobacco more harmful or addictive. Some tobacco firms, such as Altria Group, parent company of the nation’s largest Marlboro tobacco maker, Philip Morris, voluntarily post their general ingredients online. But all companies will have to be more specific in what they tell the government.

Although the FDA will have to keep much of the data confidential because of trade-secret laws, it will publish a list of harmful or potentially harmful ingredients by June, 2011. By law, those must be listed by quantity in each brand.

Cigarette makers confirm that in addition to tobacco, water, sugar, and flavorings, their products include chemicals, such as diammonium phosphate, added to improve burn rate and taste, and ammonium hydroxide, also used to improve taste.

Scientific studies suggest those chemicals help the body more easily absorb nicotine, which is the active and addictive component of tobacco. In all, there are more than 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes and their smoke. More than 60 of them are known carcinogens, the American Cancer Society says.

It’s not clear what else scientists will learn from the new information to be submitted, but collecting the data is an important start.

John Burton Race is a Michelin starred chef, made famous by the Channel 4 series French Leave and its sequel Return of the Chef. In 1995 Burton Race joined an elite group of chefs as the winner of a coveted Catey Award – the Oscar of the UK hospitality industry. There is no man in the UK who doesn’t know this famous name.

A mentor on BBC cooking show Kitchen Criminals and a judge of ITV cooking show Britain’s Best Dish decided to attempt quitting smoking by means of participating in a TV show “Celebrities Quitters” broadcasting on Channel Five. In this show, which starts tonight, are participating five stars, inclusively the South Devon foodie. “Celebrities Quitters” will follow these volunteers during 10 days and will show strength of will of each participant not to try killing weed.

Together with valiant celebrities as former Birds of a Feather star Linda Robson, Chloe Madeley, daughter of Richard Madeley, Julie Finnigan, actor Paul Danan and TV psychic Derek Acorah, Mr. Burton Race determined to change his life and to kick this obsessive habit.

During an interview with Mr. Burton Race, we have found out that he wants to quit smoking and spend the money he saves towards his family holiday.

“I want to use the money I wasted killing myself on other things. At the moment, personally, I am not loaded, to put it mildly. It has been two years since we have had a family holiday and I want to go away for a week,” says he. He realized that smoking made a kind of distance between him and his family. Great sums of money he handed out in vain, only purchasing this smoking drug and didn’t pay attention at his beloved persons’ wishes and desires. The cookery specialist is convinced that with the assistance of this show he will change himself and will achieve his goal without fail.

The outstanding expert of culinary art also added that he had problems based on smoking not only in his family but at his job as well. “My partner Susie was absolutely adamant that I smell terrible and that she was completely repulsed by me smoking the amount I was smoking,” asserted Mr. Burton Race.

”Another motivating reason that has impelled me to take part in this grandiose show is my health. When you have children and dependents and when your chest hurts, when you walk up a very steep hill or ride a horse furiously across a field and you can’t breathe, it is already evident sign that it is something wrong and something has to be done,” sighed he.

Mr. Burton Race stressed that there are several things he wants to gain from quitting tobacco.
“I want to feel fitter, be fitter. I want to live longer,” said chef. And it is reasonable.

The first series will demonstrate the meeting of our risky smokers each other and the support team who reveals results of their medical tests. Then celebrities will have possibility to smoke their last cigarette before their first smoke-free evening.

The series will be live broadcasted every week night for the next 10 days on Channel Five at 7.30pm.

TRENTON, N.J. —

The New Jersey Senate has approved a bill that restricts the sale and use of electronic cigarettes.

The bill expands the definition of “smoking” to include e-cigarettes and extends the ban on smoking by minors to include them.

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

The Senate bill, approved Thursday by a 38-0 vote, prohibits their use in public places and workplaces. It was approved Monday by the state Assembly and now goes to Gov. Jon Corzine.

U.S. Sen. Frank Lautenberg has called on the federal Food and Drug Administration to remove e-cigarettes from the market.

For my couch time, Major League Baseball does its postseason almost as well as “The Office” does body language.

Brilliant. Except for all the spittin’ and chewin’ or, worst of all, both in one quick camera shot.

How does that look in HD?

Luckily, we don’t have to watch Terry Francona over the next week or so. The Boston Red Sox manager probably did less for baseball and more for cancer than any human being alive in the infamous Octobers of 2004 and 2007.

Smokeless tobacco is banned in all national youth leagues, for players and coaches, and in high school and college baseball.

Minor league baseball kicked the habit in 1993, subjecting violators to unannounced clubhouse inspections, fines and suspensions.

“I think it’s a great policy,” Charleston RiverDogs general manager Dave Echols said. “I’ve been in the business 18 years and I think it’s making a significant impact. I remember when it used to be rampant.”

But MLB holds fast to a disgusting tradition, something not allowed in most workplaces or public buildings throughout America.

You don’t see it in the NBA, NFL, NHL or college sports. You don’t see it at bookstores or restaurants. Even stodgy NASCAR got rid of its Cup race tobacco sponsorship.

Only big league baseball, thanks to a stubborn union and inept owners bent on ruining all their good publicity with close-up shots of outfielders stuffing bad stuff into their mouths.

Francona and Co.

Back to Francona.

He chewed and spit his way to leading the Red Sox to their streak-busting 2004 World Series conquest of St. Louis, and grossed-out the world seriously again in 2007 as Boston topped Colorado.

Think of the influence on youth leaguers throughout New England and beyond, all wanting to grow up just like Terry Francona.

By the way, I like Francona.

Tremendous manager.

Hall of Fame manager.

And remarkably patient with my questions during a stop in Greenville when he was manager of the Double-A Birmingham Barons and one of his outfielders was a prospect named Michael Jordan.

In defense of Francona, it’s a tough thing to have a particular vice broadcast on live national TV hundreds and hundreds of times. How would you like that? Personally, I would not.

“I wish I could stop doing it,” Francona told mlb.com during Boston’s loss to Tampa Bay in the 2008 American League Championship Series, “but I guess I really can’t.”

So make players and managers stop, at least at the ballpark.

One rule and enforcement and think of all the happy people: Baseball fans, the Francona family, kids everywhere, the poor folks forced to clean up dugouts.

The late Jack Krol

Francona is not the only one.

One of your favorite players, maybe someone you know or have met, might have trouble with this image-ruining habit.

Next time you meet such a player, instead of spewing praise, remind them that doctors and the American Dental Association have weighed in.

Tell them to think about mom.

Ask if they kiss with that mouth.

Of course, not everything players chew is tobacco. Some prefer seeds or gum. But because there is no tobacco ban, all are suspect.

Major League Baseball officials, without citing figures, say smokeless tobacco use is declining. If so, the minor league ban almost certainly is helping.

Echols said a chew-free Riley Park makes family fun easier to sell.

“Absolutely,” he said. “You don’t see it in the back pocket. You don’t see it anywhere. It’s more what we’re trying to promote.”

Too bad it’s too late for some.

Jack Krol was the manager of our Charleston Rainbows for three seasons, 1988-1990, and briefly served as interim manager of the St. Louis Cardinals in 1978 and 1980. In 1993, the same year minor league baseball banned smokeless tobacco, the long-time chewer had part of his tongue removed.

Krol, a great guy, died of oral cancer in 1994. He was 57.

By Gene Sapakoff at gsapakoff@postandcourier.com or 937-5593.
October 27, 2009 Postandcourier

GALVESTON — Citing a state law designed to shield businesses from government regulation, a group of bar and restaurant owners is challenging a sweeping city ban on tobacco smoking set to become law Jan. 1.

In a letter to the city’s attorney, the Galveston Bar and Tavern Owners Association asked the city to conduct an assessment of how the ordinance would affect its member businesses.

Such an accounting, called a “Takings Impact Assessment,” is required under the state’s Private Real Property Rights Protection Act, the association argues.

The association wants to negotiate with the city to amend the ordinance, which will prohibit lighting up in bars, restaurants, private clubs and even tobacco shops.

Failing that, the association plans to take its complaint to the Texas attorney general, according to the letter.

The ban constitutes a regulatory taking because it would drive away customers, the association argues.

But the group has a tough fight ahead trying to prove the ban denies its members economic use of their property, constitutional law experts and observers of legal battles sparked by smoking bans said.

Along with the letter, the group this week gave City Attorney Susie Green a list of signatures from owners of 28 properties.

The group continues to gather signatures, Steve Everts, an owner of the 815 21st St. building that houses Marie’s Albatross, said.

Everts also supplies jukeboxes, pool tables and countertop games to island venues.

Under the state law, a taking is a governmental action that causes a reduction of “at least 25 percent in the market value of the affected private real property.”

Such takings are difficult to prove because government has the authority to regulate use of private property, especially to protect public health, according to guidelines about the protection act published by the Texas attorney general.

City council members who voted for the smoking ban did so with public health in mind.

“Governmental actions taken specifically for the purpose of protecting public health and safety may be given broader latitude by courts before they are found to be ‘takings,’’’ according to the attorney general’s office.

If the group filed a lawsuit using the takings argument, it likely would lose, said Richard A. Epstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago and author of “Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.”

“There is no strong line of authority that backs it,” Epstein said.

Business groups in other states have used the takings laws to no avail.

Owners of Toledo, Ohio, bars challenged the constitutionality of a smoking ordinance with a regulatory takings argument, according to the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium.

The court acknowledged evidence some of the businesses lost revenue but said that alone was insufficient to rule the government’s action a taking.

The consortium concluded the vast majority of laws banning smoking in public have been upheld.

The takings argument is becoming less common, Maggie Mahoney, deputy director of the consortium, said.

“It has been used, but groups haven’t gotten far with it,” Mahoney said.

Groups for smoking bans argue few businesses can attribute a drop in business to the bans, while others have even seen an increase in business after a ban.

The island’s smoking ban is one of the strictest around, observers said.

Adopted in July, it forbids smoking even on decks and patios at restaurants and bars. Smokers must stand 15 feet away from doors.

City officials could avoid a legal fight if they either rescinded the ban or amend it to allow smoking on restaurant patios and decks and inside bars and taverns, Everts said.

Council members Danny Weber, who voted against the ban, and Tarris Woods agreed Thursday to put the ordinance on the agenda for the next meeting on Oct. 22.

“There’s too much interference in private business,” Weber said.

By Laura Elder
The Daily News
October 10, 2009

Boise, Idaho — Keeping the Treasure Valley’s air clean. Smoke Free Idaho is lobbying to get smoking banned from local bars, and they say they’ve got new data to back up the need. We all know the affects of smoking and second hand smoke, but now new numbers are showing that the air quality in local bars and restaurants may be worse than expected.

“Everybody knows that second hand smoke is bad, but you can’t ignore data,” said Adrean Casper with Smoke Free Idaho.

Over the summer Smoke Free Idaho measured the air quality in 19 different bars in the Treasure valley, five of those were non smoking. What they found was pretty shocking.

“People that work at bars are exposed to 36 times the levels of particulates in the air that cause cancer and heart disease than somebody just walking outside,” said Casper.

They also discovered that bars that allow smoking on average are 15 times more polluted than non-smoking establishments.

“Being in the bar all the time with the smoke just makes you feel like crap every morning when you wake up,” said bar manager Nate Shoemaker.

Bars are just one of many public places being asked to go smoke free. Boise state took the leap on their own in August. Now any smokers who step foot on the BSU campus, including students, employees, volunteers and visitors will have to leave their cigarettes at home. And you may remember the city of Eagle considered doing the same, that decision was tabled. Smoke Free Idaho says they plan on pushing for it again.

“Smoke Free Idaho’s mission from the beginning has been to protect workers from the harm of second hand smoke regardless of where you work,” said Casper.

But for many, smoking is a right they don’t want to give up, no matter the statistics.

“You can smoke, that’s the best part.”

“If you decide to come to a bar that’s smoking, you’re the one choosing to be in a bar where it’s smoking. That’s your choice and it’s my choice to smoke in a bar, and it’s my right to do that,” said smoker Michelle Rhodes.

The Coalition For A Healthy Idaho says on average 220 people in Idaho die from second hand smoke every year. That’s more than people who die from traffic fatalities involving alcohol, and murder combined.

There can scarcely be an easier pitch to voters than promising to pass laws that could discourage kids from smoking. That’s probably what the Conservatives thought when they promised during last fall’s election to ban the sale of candy-and fruit-flavoured tobacco products. At a news conference, Stephen Harper wagged before the cameras rainbow-coloured packages of cigarillos, infused with flavours like banana split, bubble gum and cherry. “These products are packaged as a candy, and this is totally unacceptable,” the Prime Minister said. “This can’t continue.” A nation of alarmed parents nodded its head in agreement.

But somewhere along the way, the Conservatives’ attempt to make good on their populist promise set off controversies over NAFTA, unemployment and crime so serious that several Tory MPs who initially voted for the law have now withdrawn their unconditional support. Under scrutiny now by a Senate committee, Bill C-32 appears to have turned from a presumed legislative cakewalk — it sailed through all three readings in the House — into a political morass. Ironically, some critics think it is the bureaucrats of Health Canada who are to blame for the delay, and possibly the imperilment of the law.

“In addition to violating a fundamental principle, this legislation could have important negative repercussions,” wrote Quebec MP Maxime Bernier on his blog yesterday, explaining why he now opposes the bill in its current form. “Among which [are] an increase in contraband sales, a violation of our international commercial obligations, and the closing of the Rothmans plant in Quebec City which employs 330 workers.”

Though Mr. Harper had talked only of eliminating tobacco with flavours appealing to children — the bill is called the Cracking Down on Tobacco Marketing Aimed at Youth Act — the language Health Canada’s policy writers used in defining those flavours will also ban, along with sugary-tasting cheroots, many top American and European cigarette brands, including Marlboro, Camel and Gitanes. Those products use American Blend, or burley tobacco, which, due to its coarser taste, is often moderated with small amounts of sweetener. It may be undetectable to the smoker, but under C-32 it’s enough to get a pack of Marlboro Reds lumped in with an Aloha Coco-Banana cigarillo.

The bill has raised much ire in Washington, where several congressmen and senators from tobacco-growing regions have complained that banning U. S. tobacco, while permitting the Canadian variety, is an “unfair assault” on their industry, and may violate international trade agreements, including NAFTA.

“There is no justification to single out American blend cigarettes in the Canadian legislation, as the ban of this product would not achieve a meaningful public health benefit or discourage youth smoking,” North Carolina Congressman G. K. Butterfield wrote in a letter to Canada’s ambassador, Michael Wilson, this week.

Bill C-32 has also become a political embarrassment for the Conservatives in Quebec, and in its primary base there, the Quebec City region. American parent firm Philip Morris had planned to equip its Rothmans Benson and Hedges plant in the city to produce American blend cigarettes for the export market. Company executives warn the new law could lead to the plant’s closure.

“We are at risk, no doubt,” said Daniel Rondou, international

representative for the Baker, Confectioners, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union, representing the factory workers. “Philip Morris is not a small company. They have plants all over the world. They will have to do this [manufacturing] somewhere else if they are not authorized to do it here.” His union’s protests over the risk of losing hundreds of jobs prompted the Conservatives’ Quebec caucus this month to recommend to the Senate amendments to spare American cigarettes from Health Canada’s net.

Indeed, if the Conservatives had initially hoped to get the youth-marketed tobacco ban in place in a hurry, Canadian senators are giving C-32 a serious dose of their sober second thought. And at a committee hearing last Thursday, senators heard representatives of retail groups complain that Health Canada neglected to consult them about the bill’s collateral impacts.

“As Canadian citizens and businesses we expect that the Government of Canada will follow a transparent and democratic process in creating legislation,” testified Laurie Karson, executive director of the Frontier Duty Free Association. “Not only was our industry not consulted by Health Canada as the current wording was being developed, but Health Canada has refused our subsequent requests to meet so that we might present and discuss our concerns.” Kenneth Kim, general manager of the Ontario Korean Business Association, warned that a ban on U. S. smokes would “guarantee” retailers would lose “even more money to the illegal cigarette trade, and more of my membership will close their doors permanently.”

This left even the Conservatives’ own senators at a loss. Michel Rivard compared bill C-32 to crushing a fly with a bulldozer. Hugh Segal implored witnesses to try and explain what “Health Canada is up to here,” wondering if some staffer thought the Prime Minister’s plan might present an opportunity to outlaw American cigarettes while they were at it.

Health Canada officials say it wasn’t as covert as anything like that. Rather, it was an insistence to not make exceptions — even while they admitted they did make one for menthol cigarettes, which remain legal under C-32. “The goal of Bill C-32 is to make tobacco products less affordable, less accessible and less appealing to the most vulnerable segment of our population — young people,” wrote Josee Bellemare, press secretary to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq in an email to the National Post yesterday.

Assistant deputy minister Paul Glover conceded before the Senate committee that he realizes additives to American blend cigarettes “are not meant to be a distinguishing flavour.” But, they make bitter tobacco smoother. And “a product that is easier to smoke and less harsh is easier for youth to start.” Any attempt to exempt American cigarettes would create a “loophole,” he argued, through which child-luring tobacco peddlers might slink.

Not everyone’s so sure: The U. S. Congress this summer passed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Act, C-32’s critics point out. Effective this week, it bans tobacco products marketed explicitly on their added flavour, leaving standard, grown-up cigarettes legal. By all accounts, it’s a widely popular move, probably the sort of easy win Conservatives had hoped to have accomplished by now. Instead, thanks to the broadly worded bill, their reputation as free traders, their support in Quebec and their popularity among some retailers is suddenly at risk. And those fun-flavoured smokes? Still available at a store near you.

klibin@nationalpost.com
Kevin Libin, National Post, September 24, 2009

SAN FRANCISCO – San Francisco can enforce its ban on tobacco sales in drugstores, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday, rejecting a free-speech argument by tobacco giant Philip Morris.

The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, took effect in October. It prohibits sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products at San Francisco’s nearly 60 drugstores.

Philip Morris said the ban effectively forced the company to pull its advertising out of the stores, interfering with its constitutional right to communicate with customers. But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the city hasn’t restricted freedom of expression.

The city “limits where cigarettes may be sold; it doesn’t prevent (Philip Morris) from advertising,” the court said in a 3-0 ruling upholding a judge’s denial of an injunction against the ordinance.

Even if the measure affects advertising in drugstores, the court added, it does not suppress any ideas or the company’s ability to discuss its product.

Philip Morris could appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“The purpose and effect of the ordinance is to suppress communications directed to adult smokers, in violation of our constitutional rights,” said company spokesman Jack Marshall.

The city’s lawyer, Deputy City Attorney Vince Chhabria, said, “We are not surprised the court concluded that Philip Morris has no First Amendment right to sell cigarettes in drugstores.”

A state appeals court is considering a separate lawsuit by Walgreens, which says the ordinance discriminates against drugstores by allowing supermarkets and big-box retail stores with pharmacies to sell tobacco.


E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page A – 18 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Maputo — The tobacco producing company in the western Mozambican province of Tete, the Mozambique Leaf Tobacco, is planning to export up to 43,000 tonnes of this product by the end of this.

The company’s general manager, Rod Hagger, told AIM that exports this year are set to increase by about 4,000 tonnes if compared with last year’s.

‘We exported 39,000 tonnes to different countries across the world last year, and we expect to export 43,000 tonnes this year, which represents an increase by 4,000 tonnes’, he said.

He explained that his company will export to Europe, to Russia, to Latin America, to Australia, South Africa, and other countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC).

Mozambique Leaf Tobacco is currently employing 4,000 workers in their processing factory in Tete, and also supporting 120,000 farmers in Tete, in the central Zambezia, and in the northern Niassa provinces.

Tobacco is one of the most important cash crops in Tete, alongside cotton, and other crops such as maize, cassava, millet, rice, among others.

This is one of the products that most contributed to the volume of exports in Tete between 2005 and 2008, that grew from 2.38 billion meticais (about 89 million US dollars at current exchange rates) to 3.48 billion meticais, which represents a growth of 46.4 per cent.

To this growth also contributed exports of electricity from the Cahora Bassa dam and kapenta fish, from the Cahora Bassa artificial lake.

Mozambique Leaf Tobacco was classified in 2008, by the Institute for the Promotion of Exports (IPEX), as the greatest export, if one excludes the mega-projects.

Copyright © 2 Sept 2009 Allafrica

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

Findings:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations:

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

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

—Prohibit tobacco use anywhere on military installations.

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

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

___

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

Copyright 2009 Newsday

THE final day of the 2009 tobacco selling season has been moved from Friday this week to September 4.

Tobacco Industry and Marketing Board chief executive Dr Andrew Matibiri said in a statement that the TIMB board took the decision after taking into consideration views from industry stakeholders.

“The board at its meeting resolved that the 2009 auction flue-cured (Virginia) tobacco selling season close on Friday September 4 with final deliveries being accepted on Thursday September 3.

“All growers who sell on auction floors are therefore advised to complete their grading and baling operations by Monday August 31 at the very latest,” he said.

He added that because of the large volumes that are still being received, contract sales will continue until Friday September 18.

“Accordingly, contracted growers are advised that final deliveries should be by Thursday September 17.

“If delivery volumes are high sales may be continued beyond the final date. Dates of clean-up sales, if necessary, will be announced in due course,” he said.

Meanwhile, 5 699 farmers have so far registered to grow flue-cured tobacco in the forthcoming 2009/2010 season ahead of the October 31 deadline.

Dr Matibiri said the registration was still low given that 32 795 farmers were registered last year.

There are 62 000 registered tobacco farmers in the country although not all of them registered to grow tobacco last season.

He urged growers to do so early and avoid paying hefty fines for late registration.

“The board will sit to decide on the fines when we get close to the deadline,” he said.

Dr Matibiri said they had decentralised registration to speed up the process.

“We have teams that will be going out to all the tobacco growing areas to register farmers as some were finding it difficult to come through to our offices to register,” he said.

The registration of growers is critical in that the farmers need to have growers’ numbers used to identify them when they bring their tobacco to the floors.

The growers’ number is also critical in the processing of payments once farmers have sold their tobacco and when they are applying for support from tobacco contractors.

Dr Matibiri urged contractors to also use the TIMB database to check growers’ status.

This comes in the wake of reports that most contracted farmers were this year breaching agreements by side marketing their crop.

Bus riders accustomed to smoking a cigarette at the Transportation Center before boarding a bus will find their options limited from now on.

Charlotte Area Transit System officials said today they are putting parts of the Transportation Center off-limits to smokers. Anyone interested in lighting up will have to do so at any of three areas of the center.

CATS Transit Support Services Director John Trunk said litter from cigarette butts has been an issue at the center.

“By implementing assigned smoking areas, we are improving the cleanliness of the CTC for our customers and employees,” Trunk said.

The areas approved for smoking will be the south side of the center, facing Fourth Street; Trade Street near the bus shelter; and along Brevard Street, on the north side of the entrance doors. CATS officials say the smoking areas will be marked.

CATS will issue warnings during the first 30 days of the new policy, but after that, violators of the new law will be subject to a $50 fine.

SEASIDE HEIGHTS — After nearly a year of considering options, the borough this week unveiled no-smoking sections on the beaches.

The borough adopted an ordinance at the end of 2008 giving the council the authority to designate no-smoking zones, Borough Administrator John Camera said. In June, the council set rules that allow smokers to remain in the 20 feet closest to the boardwalk, but the rest of the beach is designated as nonsmoking.

“It seems like a pretty good compromise. We don’t want to turn anyone away,” Camera said, adding that the governing body considered many different options to balance the needs of smokers and nonsmokers.

“They have already received some concerns from residents that it’s not enough of an area, or it’s not being enforced enough,” he said.

Despite the lateness of the season, he said, the remaining few weeks of summer will serve as a trial period to help determine what should be done next year. Camera said enforcement currently involves informing people of the new rules; and no tickets have been issued.

The Oneida County Health Department has been conducting tobacco compliance checks throughout the county. Beth VanderWielen, a recent graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, is working on the Wisconsin Wins project and visiting about 186 Oneida County tobacco license holders to find out which businesses are complying with the law and which ones may need to provide their employees with more training regarding tobacco sales.

“The experience so far has been uneventful” said Beth VanderWielen, Oneida County Student Intern. “I’m glad to see that the majority of retailers refuse tobacco sales to minors and are appreciative of the program.”

The Oneida County rate of illegal tobacco sales to minors has taken a significant decrease over the last eight years. In 2001, the illegal sale rate was over 38% and at the midpoint of 2009, it is 3%. There have been 113 checks completed with only 3 businesses selling tobacco to a minor. Both retailers as well as their employees who make illegal sales are subject to fines.

“My goal is to help youth attain healthy, happy and productive futures,” said VanderWielen. “Cigarettes alone are responsible for more deaths than alcohol, car accidents, suicide, AIDS, homicide, and illegal drugs combined.” The CDC estimates that adult male smokers lose an average of 13.2 years of life and female smokers loose 14.5 years of life as direct result of smoking.

VanderWielen will be attending the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health’s Medical Doctorate program this fall.

For more information regarding the Wisconsin Wins program contact Niki Kostrova at (715) 369-6115.

Copyright © 2009 Newsofthenorth

As we know, San Francisco Assemblyman Tom Ammiano is pushing a bill to legalize and tax marijuana. On Wednesday, the State Board of Equalization told us just how much that would raise: $1.4 billion a year.

Wow, that’s a lot of pot: 16 million ounces are annually consumed in California, according to the report. You gotta love this state because…uh…uh… we forgot what we were going to say.

Oh, yeah: How in the hell do you figure out how much of an illegal quantity is consumed? It’s not like the average recreational yuppie user — and we all know doctors, lawyers, political leaders and educators who blow the occasional doob — is going to fess up to some alleged “survey taker.” Not that they’re paranoid.

The Board of Equalization’s answer is on page 6 of its report. It is basing its figure on “numerous assumptions, all of which come from law enforcement estimates and academic studies.”

There are a few other interesting tidbits hidden in the stems and seeds of this report:

Dope would be cheaper: “Legalization of marijuana would cause its street price to decline by 50 percent. This 50 percent decline in price would lead to additional consumption of 40 percent.”

But fewer would be smoking: “The imposition of the $50/ounce tax would then lead to reduced consumption of 11 percent.”

So does this mean that fewer people would smoke because they don’t want to pay the tax? And does that mean they’d rather buy from their local dealer — and save the tax?

Up with dope, down with booze and butts: The report says there may be more people smoking dope and fewer smoking cigarettes and drinking. “There could be a ’substitution effect’ toward marijuana and away from cigarettes and alcohol.”

So would you put down the Marlies and beer if weed was legal?

What about the munchies? The report claims that “consumers choosing to increase their consumption of marijuana would likely do so by reducing their consumption elsewhere, some of which is subject to the sales and use tax (such as cigarettes), some of which is not (such as groceries and most services).” Which means, you know what’s coming next from the Legislature: A Munchies Tax.

California NORML notes that “Not included are savings in law enforcement costs for investigating, arresting, prosecuting, and imprisoning marijuana offenders, which are estimated to total some hundreds of millions per year.”

So are you ready to do your part to plug California’s $26 billion budget gap?

Copyright © 2009 Sfgate

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.”

Last week’s overwhelming passage of a bill empowering the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products is a big deal and, frankly, long overdue. It’s not only going to result in fewer Americans starting to smoke, but fewer health problems for those who won’t or can’t quit.

The bill, which President Obama has endorsed, will discourage smoking in many ways. For one, it will require larger and more graphic warning labels on cigarette packs. For another, it will further restrict advertising and promotion of tobacco products: Colorful ads and store displays will be replaced by black-and-white-only text, and use of terms like “light” and “low-tar” will be forbidden.

It will also prohibit the use of flavorings like clove, which youthful smokers are attracted to. Unfortunately, though, it won’t ban menthol, which is popular among African Americans, until there is further study.

The bill will also allow the FDA to make cigarettes less harmful by regulating the amount of nicotine and other hazardous chemicals they contain. This is significant because cigarette makers have been known to boost the level of these chemicals in their products to make them more addictive.

While more Americans quit smoking every year, an estimated one-fifth of the population still smokes, and more than 400,000 die from lung cancer, emphysema and other smoking-related illnesses annually. This is not only tragic, it’s enormously expensive: roughly $100 billion a year in health care costs and an equivalent amount in lost productivity.

State governments have been quietly raising cigarette taxes over the years to discourage smoking; it’s time the federal government did more to help with this battle too.
Copyright © 2009 Dailygazette

Smokers cast outdoors to huddle like puffing pariahs would be forced to stand another 25 feet away from workplaces and public buildings under a proposed law.

State Rep. Ted Speliotis’ bill will be taken up by the Joint Committee on Public Health at a State House hearing tomorrow morning.

Pro-tobacco advocate Stephen Helfer, 62, an assistant librarian at Harvard Law School and host of “The Smoking Section” on Cambridge Community Television, said yesterday it’s government’s “progressive effort to alienate and ostracize smokers” that’s becoming the real bad habit.

“Smokers are seen somehow as second-class citizens, somehow dirty and unworthy of respect and consideration,” said Helfer, who smokes 10 cigarettes a day in addition to a pipe. “Yes, it does hurt my feelings. It makes it difficult for me to socialize. The question is, how far do you go to handicap your fellow citizen?”

Speliotis, a Danvers Democrat, wants smokers barred from stepping within 25 feet of doors, windows that open and ventilation intakes on buildings unless their boss or a business owner can persuade their local health director that “public health and safety will adequately be protected by a lesser distance.”

Helfer said he’s “very sensitive” to the needs of others who turn up their nose at smoke. He is concerned the tobacco backlash is really an attempt to “marginalize” cigarette-addicted low-income and mentally challenged individuals by using public health as a “guise” to herd them out of sight.

“To me, it’s gone far beyond second-hand smoke,” Helfer said. “This is a real effort to stigmatize a fairly large percentage of the population. I think that’s a kind of cancer on society itself.”
Copyright © 2009 Bostonherald

Where the Texas Legislature failed in increasing protections against the harmful effects of cigarette smoke, the U.S. Congress may be able to make some progress.

The state body failed to pass a statewide ban on smoking in public areas during its just completed session. The U.S. Senate, however, has voted to consider a bill next month that could give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products. The Senate may take a final vote by the end of the week, and President Barack Obama has said he is ready to sign the bill into law should the House concur.

It can’t happen quickly enough.

It should surprise no one that the legislation has long been opposed by the tobacco industry. It could allow consumers to see what chemicals and other additives tobacco companies put in their products and allow the FDA to put new limits on harmful ingredients and prohibit tobacco companies from marketing products as “light” or “mild.”

As a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society put it, “If you look at a box of macaroni and cheese, you can see what kind of dye has been used. All the ingredients are scrutinized to determine whether they are dangerous to consumers’ health. … Not so tobacco. It has remained virtually the only unregulated consumable product in America.”

As the country continues to stand vigil over 400,000 tobacco-related deaths per year, regulation is long overdue.

Certainly, the FDA is not without its shortcomings, and it has earned some just criticism, but what makes more sense — meticulously testing and regulating drugs used to battle illness and not doing the same for products that are known to contain lethal substances — or establishing equally stringent standards for both.

A Broward jury awards a Hollywood widow of tobacco smoker about $1.5 for million for the death of her husband.  He died of lung cancer at the age of 69 in 1996 after smoking four or three packs of Winston cigarettes a day.

The jury decided in R.J. Reynolds Tobacco’s favor on four of five counts, but on the fifth count found that John Sherman’s death was caused by the company concealing information about the health effects of smoking cigarettes. The jury assigned equal responsibility between Sherman and the company for his death. Gary Paige, attorney for widow Melba Sherman, said she is “very grateful.”

R.J. Reynolds vowed to appeal.

I believe that an essential element of our justice system is the fact that both sides in litigation have the right to be represented by counsel, and that lawyers on both sides make their cases before the judge or jury. A one-sided system, in which only the plaintiff – for example – was entitled to representation, would be fundamentally unfair and would inevitably lead to the miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, I believe that it is imperative to the integrity of the justice system that tobacco companies, no matter how bad we might think their behavior has been, be represented in legal matters in the courtroom. The tobacco companies are entitled to a legal defense.

Now, if one accepts the above premise, then I believe we cannot view it as unethical for a lawyer to represent a tobacco company. If the fact that a tobacco company is represented by counsel in the courtroom is essential to the integrity of the justice system, then how can it possibly be viewed as unethical and morally reprehensible for an attorney to take on that role?

After all, if the tobacco attorney is playing a role that is essential for the integrity and fairness of the justice system, then how can that individual be considered inherently unethical for accepting that role?

Now this doesn’t mean that all tobacco lawyers have acted in an ethical manner. There is a history of misconduct by tobacco lawyers who have acted unethically in doing things like helping to create a fraudulent conspiracy between the tobacco companies, hiding evidence of fraudulent behavior, etc. However, what makes those lawyers unethical is the specific unethical actions they have taken, not the mere fact that they stood in representation of a tobacco company.

By the reasoning of those who argue that representing a tobacco company is inherently unethical, the most appropriate result would be that tobacco companies would not be represented in court. It would be a one-way proceeding, with only the plaintiff being heard.

Now I hope that readers can see why I find the anti-tobacco lawyers’ and advocates’ argument so problematic. The argument serves to undermine the integrity of the justice system because it essentially calls for a one-sided process, where tobacco companies would not be able to defend themselves and plaintiffs would have their way, no matter how appropriate or inappropriate the plaintiffs’ arguments, claims, and requests.

To see one reason why it is so important for both sides to have representation, even if one side is a corporation that people may view as being evil, look at yesterday’s Wall Street Journal article about the fabrication of cases against U.S. Silica.

According to the article: “In 2003 alone … U.S. Silica was served with nearly 20,000 lawsuits claiming it had caused silicosis — a serious, if rare, lung disease. The tort bar saw silica as the “new asbestos,” says Mr. Ulizio, and he had visions of his century-old concern going bankrupt, along with dozens of others. Instead what ensued was a legal thriller, in which the defendants not only beat the suits, but exposed a mob of lawyers and doctors who were fabricating cases, and who are now under investigation. … In June of 2005, Texas federal Judge Janice Graham Jack — who was overseeing 9,000 silicosis lawsuits aggregated in her court — issued an opinion that shook the tort bar to its core. During depositions, the handful of doctors who provided nearly all these diagnoses began to crack, admitting they’d never seen patients, that their secretaries had filled out forms, and that lawyers had told them what to write. It came out that two-thirds of those claiming to have silicosis had previously claimed to asbestosis — a near medical impossibility. Judge Jack’s 249-page scathing opinion unraveled a scam of giant proportions. She accused the doctors and lawyers of “diagnoses that were manufactured for money,” provided evidence of fraud, required a Houston plaintiff’s firm to pay defense legal costs, and issued sanctions. Within a few months, Congress and a federal grand jury were investigating.”

While we might abhor the conduct of tobacco companies and other corporations, the actions of many plaintiff’s attorneys have been morally reprehensible as well. It certainly does not follow that only the plaintiff’s in tobacco cases should be represented in court, and that such an outcome would lead to the best chances for justice to be served.

We need to have both sides represented to preserve the integrity of the justice system, and therefore, it is not possible to view the act of representing a tobacco company as being inherently unethical.

This commentary comes from someone who has fought tobacco lawyers in the courtroom many times. In my experience, I always viewed the tobacco attorneys as doing their job and doing it extremely well. I also must say that many of the issues dealt with in the courtroom are not black and white. There are shades of grey, and there is a need for representation of alternative points of view.

For example, while I have vigorously argued that certain smokers should be compensated by tobacco companies for damages incurred from using their products, I concede that the issue of whether or not a smoker should be viewed as responsible for the results of his or her own decisions and actions is a difficult one. Different juries have seen the issue in different ways. Some have agreed with me that smokers who became addicted to cigarettes prior to the 1960s (and the warning labels and other publicity about the health effects of smoking) did not make informed, adult decisions and so should not be held responsible. Other juries have ruled differently. It certainly seems appropriate to have both sides present their cases and let the jury decide. I cannot see how it would be inherently unethical for a lawyer representing the tobacco companies to make the case that people should be held accountable for their own decisions and actions in life, no matter how much I might disagree with that position in the case of smokers who began smoking prior to the warning labels.

Another example is the need to follow the precepts of law. While it might be nice for the plaintiff to be able to argue that the cigarette companies should have warned their consumers of the health effects of tobacco products, the law simply does not allow them to make this argument after 1970, when federal preemption of such claims was enacted into law. It was the intention of Congress to preempt such claims and the cigarette company lawyers are acting in accordance with the law when they prevent such testimony in the courtroom. That kind of defense is not unethical. It is actually quite appropriate.

Perhaps the best example of the need for a check on anti-tobacco lawyers is the Department of Justice lawsuit, where the plaintiff asked the Court for huge monetary remedies that are simply not allowable under the RICO statute. According to a Reuters news article, Judge Sentelle (an appellate court judge) admonished the anti-smoking groups for even bringing forward the argument that the panel should allow monetary remedies.

During the past several years, significant progress has been made in identifying susceptibility genes for nicotine dependence through genetic linkage and association analyses. Although a large number of genes have been associated with tobacco smoking, only a very limited number of genetic variants are considered to be causative. How to find these functional variants and then characterize them remains challenging in the field of human genetics.

In the traditional genetic dogma, DNA codes for RNA and RNA codes for protein. But what about the leftover bits of RNA that do not seem to code for proteins? One type of RNA ‘leftovers’ is the microRNAs. These small pieces of RNA do not code for proteins. Instead, they influence the extent to which other genes are expressed, i.e., the rate or extent of conversion of DNA to RNA. To date, there have been relatively few examples of the direct involvement of microRNAs in psychiatric disorders.

However, a study scheduled for publication in the April 15th issue of Biological Psychiatry, published by Elsevier, has now provided new insights into how variation in the dopamine D1 receptor gene (DRD1) may be linked to the risk for nicotine dependence through microRNA action.

Huang and Li, researchers at the University of Virginia, previously showed that the DRD1 gene, one of the major receptors in the brain that mediate the actions of the neurotransmitter dopamine, is associated with tobacco dependence, and that two alleles of a variant within this gene are differentially expressed. “In the current study, we demonstrated that such differential expression of DRD1 is regulated by microRNA miR-504,” explains Dr. Li.

In other words, this microRNA seems to directly influence how these genetic variations are expressed within the DRD1 gene, thereby influencing ones risk to developing nicotine dependence. John Krystal, M.D., Editor of Biological Psychiatry, comments: “This study provides an interesting example of how variation in a gene that contributes to the risk of smoking may do so by throwing a ‘micro switch’ and thereby increasing the expression of the dopamine 1 receptor gene.”

Source: Eurekalert

Nearly half of all unemployed Irish people smoke, according to a report issued today.

Research carried out by the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland also shows that 27% of all Irish people currently smoke.

This means the incidence of smokers among the unemployed, at 49%, is nearly double that of the general population.

In the workforce, craft and trade workers showed the highest incidence of smoking, with 45% of female and 39% of male workers smoking.

It also revealed that the lowest levels of smoking were reported by professional workers, with 20% of men and 18% of women smoking.

Oregon would be the first state in the nation to ban tobacco possession among those younger than 21 under a bill taken up Wednesday by a legislative committee.

House Bill 2974 would increase from 18 to 21 the age at which it would be legal to buy, smoke, chew or otherwise possess tobacco products. It was heard by the House Human Services Committee, where bill sponsor and state Rep. Betty Komp, D-Woodburn, said it would have the effect of deterring smoking among teenagers.

She said it would be harder for young people to pass themselves off as 21 than as 18-year-olds, and that younger teens and preteens probably would put off thinking about smoking if the age limit was raised.

According to the American Lung Association, more than 4.5 million U.S. adolescents smoke cigarettes. Among smokers of all ages, 90 percent started before turning 21.

Komp said she is eager for Oregon to chart new territory, setting a higher age limit than 19 — currently the strictest in some states — when it comes to tobacco possession.

“I would like that opportunity for Oregon to be ahead on this and say, ‘We’re going to help children in this way,’ ” she said.

But some smokers say they would still have started the nicotine habit as teenagers, regardless of what Oregon statutes might say about the legal age to do so.

“There’s no question that smoking is bad for you, but I don’t think raising the age would make it any more difficult to get cigarettes,” said 20-year-old Alex Craib, a University of Oregon student who started smoking at age 15.

UO senior Derek Russell defended the right of those old enough to smoke now, but young enough to be barred under the pending legislation, to choose for themselves whether to light up. Russell said on a college campus, some students — even younger smokers — use cigarette breaks to relax.

“Honestly, right now I’m taking 18 upper division credits,” said Russell, 22, who started smoking at age 17. “This is basically the only way to get me through the day.”

Lobbyist Mark Nelson, whose clients include cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds and retailer 7-Eleven, said the Legislature should continue to treat 18-year-olds as adults when it comes to smoking.

“They are allowed to vote and that means they should have a right of choice,” Nelson said.

Nelson preferred to talk about an amendment proposed by Komp’s co-sponsor, Rep. Mitch Greenlick, D-Portland, who presented a proposal to make nicotine products available only through a doctor’s prescription. “You may as well adopt an amendment to ban the sale of tobacco in Oregon,” Nelson said.

Greenlick said his proposal may have come out on April Fool’s Day, “but I assure you, it’s no joke.” He said lawmakers should be willing to accept Nelson’s challenge. His sole reason for proposing to make nicotine a prescription drug, Greenlick said, is so that those addicted to tobacco can obtain gums, patches and other products containing nicotine aimed at helping them kick the habit.

Greenlick said he is flexible on when that should happen, suggesting either 2011 or 2013. That way, he said, state government could make plans for giving up the tax revenue that off-the-shelf tobacco sales produce for Oregon. In 2007-08, that came to $255 million.

Rep. Carolyn Tomei, a Milwaukie Democrat and chairwoman of the committee that heard the bill, said she started out dubious about whether it is realistic to raise the smoking age. But after the hearing and discussions with panel members, she said she would try to move it through the process.

“I think people have a lot of interest in this bill, so I’m going to try to work it,” she said.

Source: Registerguard