A new federal law intended to make sure mail-order cigarette sellers don’t avoid taxes is frustrating well-meaning people who want to mail smokes, including a Louisville man who can no longer send Marlboro Menthols to his grandson, a Marine serving in Afghanistan.

“Why punish a serviceman with this act when he can’t even have a cigarette over there,” Jack Gray said. “That’s not believable.”

It’s an unintended consequence of the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act, or PACT Act as it’s known for short, said a spokeswoman for the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Herbert Kohl, D-Wisc.

Besides foiling mail-order sellers that avoid taxes, the law also seeks to prevent minors from circumventing age limits by buying cigarettes through the mail.

In response to the law, which was passed and signed by President Obama in March, the U.S. Postal Service adopted a new policy at the end of June that nearly bans mailing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco. Most exceptions require they be sent via Express Mail, which allows the post office to confirm the package is delivered to an adult.

But Express Mail isn’t available in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gray found out about the new law recently when he went to mail a package to his grandson, which he does occasionally.

“It was a bolt out of the blue,” Gray said.

“We are working to fix it as soon as possible,” Kohl spokeswoman Dawn Schueller said Tuesday. Rep. Duncan Hunter, a California Republican, filed a bill July 30 to create an exemption for mailing tobacco to members of the Armed Forces in combat zones. The bill has been referred to a committee.

UPS hasn’t delivered cigarettes to consumers since 2005, spokeswoman Susan Rosenberg said, adding that the decision came as various states passed restrictions. She said the postal service was the last major commercial carrier delivering cigarettes to consumers.

A FedEx spokeswoman said the company only ships tobacco products between licensed distributors.

Several national groups such as the American heart and lung associations supported the PACT Act for its restrictions on minors buying cigarettes over the Internet and the crack down on sales that avoid taxes.

But the new law has prompted frustrated discussion on a Website for parents of Marines and led to the creation of a Facebook page calling for the law to be changed.

Gray said his grandson, Lance Cpl. Thomas H. Gray, 20, a 2008 Valley High graduate, has been in Afghanistan since April. Gray said he mailed him cigarettes at least four times before the new policy.

“He can’t get the kind of cigarettes he likes over there,” Gray said, adding that he hasn’t talked to his grandson in a couple weeks, so they haven’t discussed the policy change.

Native Americans in New York, who sell cigarettes by mail-order and otherwise didn’t have to enforce state taxes, are challenging it in federal court.

“But this is not a case of trying to sell cigarettes,” Gray said of his situation. “This is a case of trying to get a cigarette to a guy that’s over there in a combat zone. He’s gonna smoke ‘em. He ain’t gonna sell ‘em.”

The bill included a provision that allows cigarettes to be mailed to individuals “who are not minors for noncommercial purposes.”

“We included that provision specifically to allow care packages to service members,” Kohl spokeswoman Schueller said, acknowledging that the Postal Service used Express Mail to verify the age of the recipient.

“We’re just following the law, said David Walton, a USPS spokesman in Louisville. “The ban is not something that we initiated. It’s a law that’s very exacting.”

As for sending the package without declaring what’s inside, Walton said packages being mailed overseas require a customs form and anyone caught lying about the contents could be prosecuted.

Denra Riley, president of the Fort Campbell Enlisted Spouses’ Club, said she’s aware of complaints about the new law, including from her husband, Sgt. First Class Christopher Riley of the 184th EOD Battalion out of Fort Campbell.

“I can’t help him out any more and it kind of does stink to be a spouse and not be able to send your husband things he” wants, she said.

“We do have a lot of soldiers complaining about it and I have heard a few spouses, myself included, that kind of don’t agree with it,” she said.

Riley said she thinks it would be a bigger issue, but “people are still going to do it. They’re just not going to put it on the forms any longer.”

But Gray said he doesn’t want to do that.

“I don’t advocate breaking the law,” he said. “But it’s just wrong, plain flat out wrong, to punish a Marine over there because of a tax law over here.”

By Gregory A. Hall

New Hong Kong tobacco regulations state incoming passengers aged 18 years and older will be allowed to carry at most 19 cigarettes starting on Aug. 1, according to a recent announcement by Hong Kong’s Customs and Excise Department.

The department hopes that citizens and incoming passengers will cooperate with customs officers in implementing the measure.

A spokesperson for the Customs and Excise Department said on July 27 in order to step up tobacco control, encourage smoking cessation and to protect public health, the Dutiable Commodities (Exempted Quantities) (Amendment) Notice 2010 stipulates that an incoming passenger 18 years-old and above is entitled to bring only 19 cigarettes, one cigar, or no more than 25 grams of cigar or other manufactured tobacco into Hong Kong. The new regulations will take effect on Aug. 1, 2010.

According to the notice, those who violate the regulations will face a maximum fine of 1 million Hong Kong dollars and imprisonment for two years.

In 2009, the tobacco industry officially fell under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and, for the first time, tobacco products became subject to federal regulation. As of June 22, cigarette manufacturers are no longer allowed to label their products as “light,” “ultra light,” “mild,” or “low tar.” The FDA has argued that these labels were designed to deceive consumers by suggesting that “light” cigarettes were less harmful than regular cigarettes, or that the risk of cancer and other smoking-related diseases was lessened by choosing a “light” or “ultra light” cigarette. Tobacco companies counter by saying that the terms “light” and “mild” refer to the flavor of the cigarette in question, and should not be taken to mean anything about the safety level of the product.

But, will changing the name of a cigarette — for instance, from “Marlboro Light” to “Marlboro Gold” — really change Americans’ smoking habits, or prevent kids and teens from picking up the smoking habit?

Recent studies show that nearly 21 percent of all American adults smoke. More alarming, the CDC reports that about 3,000 kids under the age of 18 start smoking every day, and underage smokers account for 20 percent of all American smokers. One in five deaths in America is attributable to smoking. Given these alarming statistics, America has a vested interest in finding a way to limit smoking. What’s not clear, however, is how many people choose their cigarette based on a perceived lower risk from it, or how changing the labels will affect that choice.

Until I quit over 15 years ago, I was a pack-and-a-half a day smoker. My cigarette of choice was Camel Light. I did not choose my brand because I thought that light cigarettes would be less harmful to me than the full-strength version. Jokes about going to the doctor to be diagnosed with “light cancer” aside, I knew that my Camel Lights were just as dangerous as my father’s Vantages and my boyfriend’s Marlboro Reds.

Many of the women I knew in my small Midwestern town chose light cigarettes from various brands, and not a single one of us, if pressed, would have said we had chosen it to lower our risk of cancer. People choose a given cigarette brand for myriad reasons — taste, image, cost, availability — and none of these factors have a thing to do with perceived health risks. Americans know that cigarette smoking is dangerous, and we do it by the millions anyway. Labeling changes do not get at the core issue of why people pick up smoking and continue to smoke, even in the face of potentially deadly health consequences.

Most Americans will likely continue to smoke their favored brand, even if they have to ask for it a little differently at the gas station or tobacco shop. Much as raising prices on cigarettes did not significantly lower the smoking risk — in fact, the number of American smokers rose in 2009 — changing the labeling will not stop significant numbers of people from smoking.

While the labeling changes are a good step for truth in advertising, they do not get at the heart of why people smoke. The addictive nature of tobacco ensures that people are unlikely to stop simply because their cigarette pack changes or they have to ask for “Marlboro Silvers” instead of “Marlboro Ulta Lights.” Until we address the systemic causes of smoking in America, all the label changes, warning labels, and price hikes in the world won’t keep American smokers from lighting up.

New York City used to be the “murder capital” of the country. These days, it looks more like the nation’s health club and spa.

In 2003, the Big Apple outlawed smoking in all bars and restaurants, and in 2006 banished trans fats from local eateries. In 2008, the city began requiring chain restaurants to post the nutritional content of their offerings, meaning New Yorkers would never look at a Big Mac the same way again. And earlier this year, a state assemblyman from Brooklyn introduced legislation that would prohibit restaurants from using salt “in any form” when preparing food.

New York has gotten its share of good-humored ribbing about its “nanny state” tendencies over the past few years. But the city’s latest regulation is getting more serious pushback from a determined source: the tobacco industry.

For the past six months, New York has required retailers to display posters with nauseating photos that show the effects of prolonged tobacco use. The placards include the typical warnings that smoking “causes lung cancer” or “causes tooth decay” but also feature photos of, for example, a blackened lung or a rotted tooth, to drive the point home in an extremely visceral fashion.

On Wednesday, three leading tobacco companies — Philip Morris, R. J. Reynolds, and Lorillard — filed a lawsuit contending the signs improperly usurp the federal government’s role of regulating tobacco packaging. The companies also argue that the law violates the First Amendment, since it forces storeowners to display the signs even if they disagree with their message. The New York State Association of Convenience Stores, a non-profit trade association made up of 250 companies, also joined the suit.

“The mandated signs crowd out other advertisements and otherwise dominate the point of sale in many smaller establishments, to the exclusion of merchandise or other messages chosen by the store owners,” the suit says.

Floyd Abrams, a First Amendment lawyer who is representing the retailers, told The New York Times on Friday that the city “doesn’t have the right…to force other people to adopt its expression.”

Sarah Perl, assistant commissioner for tobacco control at New York’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, told the Times in December that the posters are intended to target consumers “at the point-of-sale moment.” Perl added that customers have learned to tune out the generic Surgeon General’s warnings that appear on all cigarette packs and advertisements, in large part because those warnings haven’t changed much since their introduction in 1966.

Regardless of the outcome, the suit will have far-reaching consequences even outside New York. Massachusetts, which was in the process of implementing a law requiring similar signs, has a special interest in the case.

“Any education and cessation material we can get out there, we would like to get out on a state level,” Jennifer Manley, a spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, told Boston.com on Sunday. “We’re going to keep watching New York City closely to see what the outcome is.”

And even if the tobacco companies win this round, they’ll take a hit in 2012, when federal standards will begin mandating more conspicuous warnings on cigarette packages. Unlike the subtle black-and-white boxes currently featured on the sides of cigarette boxes, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act requires that warnings cover at least 50 percent of the package and that the word “warning” appear in capital letters.

The Act was signed into law by President Obama, himself an occasional smoker, last June.
By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com, June 8, 2010

New government regulations for smokeless tobacco sponsorships couldn’t have come at a worse time for two teams. Ron Hornaday Jr. must remove Longhorn snuff from his Camping World Truck Series Chevrolet and Greg Biffle must drop RedMan from his Nationwide Series Ford by the end of June.

The Food and Drug Administration will have new rules that will further restrict the way tobacco companies can market their products. As of June 22, cigarette and smokeless tobacco sponsorships can’t be included in any athletic, musical, social, cultural or team-related event.

Kevin Harvick owns Hornaday’s truck. The team learned of the new regulations 18 months ago, but even with a head start it hasn’t been able to find a replacement.

KENTUCKY RACE ON HOLD: The Kentucky Speedway cleared its biggest hurdle in getting a Sprint Cup Series race last month when the track’s original owners dropped their anti-trust lawsuit against NASCAR. But that doesn’t mean the track located between Cincinnati and Louisville, Ky., will get a race next year.

Speedway Motorsports Inc., which bought the track in 2007, will have to make improvements to the 1.5-mile speedway, including adding seats, before it can play host to a Sprint Cup race, the company reported to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Once the work is completed, SMI still has to figure out a way to get a race. NASCAR has insisted it won’t expand the schedule, so SMI’s best option may be to move a race from one of its seven existing facilities.

New Hampshire Motor Speedway might be a prime target since local leaders there are demanding $150,000 from the track for police and emergency services for next month’s race.

BEST, WORST OF BROTHERS: Steve Addington worked with Kyle Busch last year; now he’s Kurt Busch ‘s crew chief. Between the two, he’s happier with the older, more mature Kurt.

“Well, you know, Kyle has his own personality, that’s just Kyle,” Addington said after Kurt Busch’s victory Saturday in the Sprint All-Star race. “… He’s trying. I know he’s trying and trying hard to get to where he stays a lot calmer.”

Kurt used to have a reputation for being a hothead, too. Now he’s under control, gaining the respect and admiration of the rest of his Penske Racing team.

“I think the biggest difference is, you know, being mature and being through the up-and-down seasons,” Addington said.

By Don Coble
May 26, 2010

It took a disastrous economy but South Carolina finally joined the rest of the country in implementing at least a double-digit tax on cigarettes. Lawmakers had to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto Thursday to do so. But come July 1, the state tax will be – 57 cents.

That’s still low. Only eight states – including North Carolina, and we’ll get back to that in a moment – have lower state taxes on cigarettes. South Carolina is now tied with Idaho at 57 cents. The new lowest cigarette tax state is Missouri, whose tax stands at 17 cents.

The politics of taxes being what they are, especially cigarette taxes in a tobacco-growing state, change didn’t come easily. It’s taken a decade of wrangling. The key to passage this year might simply have been desperation for any revenue source to help the state keep afloat financially.

But common sense should have won out years ago. The simple fact is raising the cigarette tax does two valuable things: It’s a reliable source of additional revenue, which states need more than ever as the recession drags on, and it reduces smoking – a habit that costs lives and tax dollars.

A Centers for Disease Control report released last month reaffirms those benefits. The report notes that every 10 percent increase in the cigarette tax reduces smoking by 4 percent among adults and 7 percent among young people. Even more reduction comes when states use the tax money for specific tobacco control programs. Not many states are doing so, according to this report.

Money raised through state tobacco taxes in the last fiscal year was more than $17 billion. And based on its studies of past performance, the CDC estimates that if every state were to raise its cigarette tax by $1, “even accounting for the resulting decrease in consumption, an estimated $9.1 billion in additional revenue would be generated each year in the United States. Additionally, approximately 1 million premature smoking-caused deaths would be prevented, and 2.3 million children would not initiate smoking.”

That brings us back to North Carolina. Last year when the state legislature took up raising the cigarette tax from 35 cents we pushed for at least a 50-cent bump. At one point, Gov. Bev Perdue was poised to ask for a $1 increase but cut that in half as a budget battle ensued. In the end, lawmakers only bumped up the tax by 10 cents, the lowest increase of the 15 states. Most raised taxes by at least 50 cents.

Looking at what South Carolina did, in a much more recalcitrant atmosphere, N.C. lawmakers should be slapping themselves. North Carolina’s dime increase last year could have and should have been more.

There’s probably little appetite to go back to that tax well again so soon. But as lawmakers patched together an austere budget for the coming fiscal year, they should acknowledge this missed opportunity to get more from the cigarette tax. Things will likely get worse next year as the state faces the end of federal bailout dollars.

Several Republican S.C. lawmakers said that looming revenue cliff is what made them see the light about the cigarette tax.

“We’re about to fall into the ditch,” said GOP Sen. Larry Martin of Pickens.

Still, some in South Carolina are predicting a vote for this tax will hurt supporters come election time. But just as we said last year when N.C. lawmakers voted for an increase, not all tax hikes are the same. This one is an additional source of revenue in difficult times, and reduces smoking, which can help save lives.

WASHINGTON: A new research by scientists has suggested that a new strain of tobacco plant can make antibodies to clean up toxic pond scum that affects humans, livestock and wildlife.

In a new research report appearing in the March 2010 print issue of the FASEB Journal, scientists explain how they developed a genetically modified strain of tobacco that helps temper the damaging effects of toxic pond scum, scientifically known as microcystin-LR (MC-LR), which makes water unsafe for drinking, swimming, or fishing.

This plant could serve as a major tool for helping keep water sources safe to use, especially in developing nations.

“We hope that our study will ultimately lead to a reduction in the exposure of humans, livestock, and wildlife to environmental pollutants,” said Pascal M.W. Drake, co-author of the study, from the Centre for Infection at St. George’s University of London.

To develop this type of tobacco, Drake and colleagues genetically altered a tobacco plant to produce an antibody to MC-LR, by inserting genes which code for the production of this antibody.

With the genes in place, the new strain of tobacco produced the antibody in its leaves and secreted the antibody from its roots into the surrounding hypotonic growth medium.

When the toxin from MC-LR was added to the plant’s surrounding hypotonic growth medium, the antibody bound to the toxin, rendering it harmless.

This is the first example of a transgenic plant expressing an antibody that remediates an environmental toxin, but according to Drake, more plants like these will be developed in the future to address different environmental problems.

According to Gerald Weissmann, MD, editor-in-chief of the FASEB Journal, “Tobacco is perhaps one of the most cultivated non-food crop in human history, and for centuries it has hurt human health. Now, with smart genetic tweaking, tobacco may prove more valuable in the field than in the pipe.”

Did you get a H1N1 flu shot? You can thank unhatched chicken eggs for that. But a new venture dubbed Project GreenVax aims to take animals completely out of the equation by making vaccines with tobacco plants.

In traditional influenza vaccine production, scientists inject the virus into fluid surrounding a chicken embryo. After many days of incubation, the eggs are opened and the virus is removed and purified to make a vaccine. It’s a slow process–it takes two weeks to make an egg-based vaccine. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates it would take a whopping 900 million eggs to make 300 million doses of vaccine.

Enter Project GreenVax, a venture spearheaded by the Texas Plant-Expressed Vaccine Consortium that plans to use plants instead of eggs to make high-yield, low-cost influenza vaccines. The venture has received $61 million in funding from the TPVC and DARPA for its approach, which involves infecting tobacco plant leaves with a virus, grinding up the leaves, and separating the antigens.

GreenVax is beginning construction next week on its 13,500-square-meter facility at the Texas A&M Health Science Center in Bryant, Texas. When completed in approximately 8 weeks, the prefab facility will house nine modular pods to grow tobacco plants and perform research.

There’s still plenty of work to be done before we start getting injected with plant-based vaccines. FDA rules for the vaccines are still a bit dicey, for one. That’s because scientists haven’t been able to produce a single approved plant-based vaccine in over a decade of research. But if GreenVax succeeds, the company could save lives in the case of a pandemic–while it would take the entire planet’s labs 12 months to make three billion doses of H1N1 vaccine using the egg approach, GreenVax claims that its single facility in Texas could scale up to generate 100 million vaccines each month.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, will signal his support for the move as he launches the government’s “tobacco control strategy” tomorrow which aims to halve the number of smokers in Britain by 2020.

In a major speech Mr Burnham will also pave the way for new “interventionist” policies aimed at stopping people smoking in their own homes or cars if they live with children.

However, he will stop short of planning an outright ban on domestic or in-car smoking – claiming this would be a move too far against freedom of choice.

Instead, ministers will consider banning the sale of cigarettes from vending machines, which they say currently provide far too easy access for children as they can be positioned near the entrances of pubs and clubs.

And the current ban on smoking in workplaces and “enclosed public places” such as pubs and workplaces could be extended to cover areas such as walkways and entrances to buildings, currently a favourite haunt of smokers exiled from inside.

Ministers will also announce a new crackdown on the import of cheap illicit cigarettes from abroad.

Mr Burnham said that while no final decisions had been taken, he personally backed moves to impose a “plain packaging” regime on tobacco manufacturers.

“It’s something I will be looking at closely,” he said.

He aims to halve the number of smokers from its current level of 21 per cent of the population to 10 per cent in 10 years.

If the ban comes in the Department of Health would be likely to outlaw the use of logos, colours and graphics on packets and require cigarettes to be sold in plain packs with just the text of the brand of cigarettes.

The tobacco industry admits that plain packaging would have a drastic effect on profits and do enormous damage to cigarette makers.

A ban on branding and logos on packets in England could see smokers abandoning well-known brands such as Marlboro and Silk Cut, which cost around £6 a pack, and switch to cheaper options.

Experts say the move could strip cigarettes of what remains of their glamorous image and help reduce the numbers of young people taking up the habit.

City analysts predict that if a ban was introduced in the UK it could have a “domino effect” on governments around the world, slashing worldwide profits of tobacco companies.

However, Mr Burnham believes that Britain is among the antismoking pioneers, with a ban on smoking in public places introduced in Scotland in 2006 and in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in 2007 and the government should not be afraid to adopt a similarly aggressive stance on packaging.

He said the drive to stop people smoking at home or in their cars to protect children from the effects of passive smoking could be taken forward with new hard-hitting advertising campaigns.

In his speech tomorrow he is expected to say: “I make no apology for taking a hard line when it comes to protecting children and giving them the best start in life.”

“We’re also looking at new protections for children.

“Recent studies have shown that tobacco packaging influences smoking behaviours, rather than simply promoting particular brands.

Removing brand marketing on packs and having a requirement for ‘plain packaging’ on all tobacco products would increase the effectiveness of health warnings and reduce misconceptions about the relative risks of different brands which terms like ‘smooth’ perpetuate.

“All cigarettes prematurely kill lifelong smokers regardless of make or brand. So we need to look closely at the evidence on the links between packaging and consumption.

“And we’re encouraging research to further our understanding, especially when it comes to children and young people. We’ll also seek views on the legal implications of any restrictions on packaging for intellectual property rights and freedom of trade.”

Currently, some 80,000 deaths are caused each year as a direct result of smoking and the habit costs the NHS around £2.7 billion per year.

Chris Ogden, chief executive of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association, said: “We welcome the new initiative to crack down on the illicit trade in tobacco products.”

However, he hit out at plans to force firms to use plain packaging and said: “All policy in this area should be based on evidence and not merely tokenistic.”

CIGARETTE firms are to be forced to sell every brand in plain GREY packets to make them less attractive to kids.

They will all have to be in identical boxes, with the brand name shown in just plain text above a big health warning, under new government plans.

Ministers want to ditch the glitzy packaging when laws forcing shopkeepers to keep smokes under the counter come in later this year.

And parents could also be banned from lighting up at home or in their cars when travelling with children.

Health Secretary Andy Burnham will unveil the crackdown tomorrow. A Health Department source said: “We want to do everything possible to stop children from starting to smoke.

“We’re going to look to see if getting rid of jazzy cigarette packs will take away the lure of smoking.”

Mr Burnham is to start talks with shops and manufacturers after a study showed children believe cigs in attractive packets are less harmful.

Britain has already seen the toughest ever crackdown on cigarettes – including a ban on smoking at work.

And new laws will soon come into force banning vending machines and cigarettes on open display in stores.

But Mr Burnham plans to go even further by declaring his vision of a “smoke-free future” where kids are protected from the scourge of tobacco.

In a speech tomorrow he will say: “I believe we are right to take tough action – and that we should be unapologetic about it.

“I make no apology for taking a hard line when it comes to protecting children and given them the best start in life. I want to see a smoke-free future, a future where people lead healthier and longer lives because they don’t smoke.” His new purge on tobacco will guarantee NHS help for every smoker who wants to quit, including free nicotine patches or gum.

Seven out of ten smokers say they want to stop and 2.4 million have quit since the “Smoking Kills” campaign was launched in 1998.

An insider added: “Every smoker will get support, including nicotine replacement therapy. It’s much better to be on patches than inhale all the toxic chemicals in cigarettes.”

Treating patients for smoke- induced lung and heart disease costs the NHS £2.7 billion a year.

Last night the new clampdown was welcomed by Labour MP Ian McCartney, who has campaigned tirelessly to protect kids from smoking.

He said: “This will be another big step towards preventing another generation of young people being damaged and injured by tobacco.”

A House panel voted unanimously Friday in favor of a bill meant to create new regulations for electronic cigarettes, while placing on hold a second bill that would regulate, and in many cases ban, smokeless nicotine products.

Under HB88, it would be illegal for those under 19 to purchase or possess e-cigarettes, battery-powered substitutes into which the user inserts a cartridge and, when it’s puffed, a nicotine vapor is emitted. These devices are supposed to cut the ingestion of tar and second-hand smoke.

The bill also calls on school districts and the State Board of Education to regulate their use in schools, as HB88 would not make e-cigarettes subject to Utah’s Clean Air Act, until the FDA determines whether or not the trace nicotine emitted from them can affect those around them.

Rep. Ronda Menlove, R-Garland, called the bill she sponsored “legislation that reflects a changing world.” HB88 received support from the Utah PTA and the Utah School Board, as well as representatives for White Cloud Cigarettes, a major producer of the e-cigarettes, who said they already sought to limit use of e-cigarettes by minors and non-smokers.

The second bill, HB71, was created to target nicotine products packaged to appear like mints, cinnamon sticks and other candies, currently being analyzed by the FDA.

Rep. Paul Ray, R-Clearfield, HB71′s sponsor, claimed these were specific efforts by tobacco companies to target children.

However, committee members postponed voting on the bill after realizing that if left unchanged, the bill would make products including moist snuff and e-cigarettes illegal as well.

Ray said he would return to the committee with two amendments, one to exempt smokeless nicotine products currently sold in Utah, and another to address whether or not e-cigarettes should be allowed to continue to be sold.

Leeann Duncan, White Cloud’s west coast distributor, opposed HB71. “I’m actually proud to help sell electronic cigarettes,” she said. “It’s helping lots of people, and that’s what the whole thing is about.”

Rep. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, asked that both those in favor of e-cigarettes and those, like Michael Siler of the American Cancer Society, return to the committee with additional objective evidence to support their claims.

Rep. Phil Riesen, D-Holladay, asked for bills that go further than the original two. “Setting aside children, we need to figure out a way to get nicotine products out of the hands of adults, because it’s going to kill you.”

DAMASCUS, – A much tougher anti-smoking law in Syria, signed by President Bashar al-Assad and due to come into force in early 2010, will outlaw smoking in public places, including restaurants and bars, hospitals, sports halls and cinemas.

The law covers cigarettes and cigars, as well as traditional ‘shisha’ water pipes.

“The ban is timely,” said Mahmoud Etah, a Syrian doctor. “Smoking, especially of water pipes, has become more prevalent among young people and we are yet to see the full health effects.”

According to the Syrian Society for Countering Cancer, 60 percent of adult men and 23 percent of women smoke; 98 percent of people are said to be affected by passive smoking.

The more serious health effects which the measures hope to reduce include lung and mouth cancer, as well as respiratory diseases. The levels of these diseases are not documented in the country, but doctors report an increase in the number of people exhibiting symptoms associated with them.

It is for this reason that the ban has been introduced now, said Bassam Abu al-Dahab, former head of the National Programme to Combat Smoking.

The World Health Organization (WHO) does not have any statistics on Syria, but in Egypt it attributes 90 percent of lung cancer deaths to tobacco use. Globally, tobacco-related cancers as a percentage of all cancers are on the rise.

Current trends show that by the year 2020 or 2030, tobacco is likely to be the world’s leading cause of death and disability, killing more than 10 million people annually (70 percent of these deaths occurring in developing countries) and claiming more lives than HIV, tuberculosis, maternal mortality, motor vehicle accidents, suicide, and homicide combined. There are about 1.1 billion smokers in the world – about one-third of the global population aged I5 and over, according to WHO.

The Syrian government has already passed several laws regulating the tobacco industry and smoking. A 1996 decree banned tobacco advertising and in 2006 Syria banned smoking in government offices and public transport. The new law envisages a 2,000 SYP (US$44) fine on those who break it.

“Smoking awareness days”

Governmental and voluntary initiatives to raise awareness of the health risks of smoking have increased this year, say activists. “Smoking awareness days” have been held at private educational institutes such as Kalamoon University near Damascus, which has also introduced a ban on smoking in the university campus.

However, the effectiveness of the tougher legal framework is in doubt. Whilst people do not smoke in buses, it is common to see the current laws against smoking flouted in taxis and some government offices, and fines are rarely imposed, they say.

The stricter law will be even harder to enforce, say Syrian restaurant and bar owners, who have expressed dismay at the ban. Ahmad Kozoroch, the owner of Rawda, a famous coffee shop close to the Syrian parliament, said he would resist the ban in his establishment, pointing to the fact that most of his profit comes from water pipes.

“The law will hurt my business,” said Kozoroch. “I am not sure people will stop smoking. Instead they are likely to pay bribes to official inspectors to avoid the fines.”
Source: IRIN3 December 2009

LUDHIANA: Acting on complaint of a city resident regarding violation of smoking laws in Satluj Club, Punjab State Human Rights

Club member Ajay Singh Bhandari, bearing membership number 548, had, in his complaint lodged with the commission, alleged that the club authorities had converted a large part of the rummy room into a smoking zone, due to which, the elderly including women in the room were being put through a lot of trouble. Bhandari had alleged that the smoking area had not been constructed in keeping with norms of the notification issued by Union health ministry in which it had been clearly said that the smoking area should be built at a place where no other services are rendered by clubs or hotels.

Acting accordingly, the commission has said it is a case of human rights violation. Further, the commission, in its recent orders, disposed of the complaint, directing the DC, president of the club, to look into the matter.

Notably, this is not for the first time that the commission has issued directions to the DC to look into the matter. The complainant has been raising the issue over the last few months. He had lodged a complaint with the commission earlier too. The commission, in an order dated May 14, disposed of a complaint, directing the DC to look into it.

However, while no action was taken in this regard, in a letter written to the commission a few months back, Bhandari alleged that the state of affairs in the club was yet to improve. Smoking was being allowed all over the club including billiard room, bar room, club lawn and other places where people could be seen freely smoking, flouting government?s rules with impunity. He added that eatables, soft drinks and hard drinks were being served in the smoking area of the club.
By Manvinder Singh
1 December 2009, Timesofindia

Dec. 1 marks the beginning of a new era in the restaurant business in Virginia.

On that day, Virginia’s smoking ban in restaurants, a law passed by the General Assembly during the 2009 session, will go into effect. It bans smoking in all restaurants that are open to the public, with a few exceptions.

According to the Web site of the Virginia Department of Health, which is mandated to assist with the law’s enforcement, the law is meant to protect the health of restaurant employees and patrons from the effects of secondhand smoke, which leads to the deaths of more than 1,000 adults each year in Virginia.

Many restaurants will not have to make any changes in response to the new law. Seventy-four percent of Virginia’s fast-food and full-service restaurants are already smoke free. In Campbell County, 88 percent are already smoke free, while in Pittsylvania County, 76 percent are smoke free.

The ban on smoking includes convenience stores, gas stations, bowling alleys and skating rinks if they prepare and serve food to the public.

Entities exempted from the law include private clubs such as a Moose lodge, outdoor areas of restaurants where the owners allow smoking and hot dog stands.

Restaurants who choose to continue to offer a smoking area must create a structurally separate area for smoking. It must also be separately vented, and one public entrance must be into nonsmoking area.

Gary Hagy, director of the Division of Food and Environmental Services at VDH, said in a recent telephone interview that structurally separate means a solid wall with a door must divide the smoking area from the nonsmoking area.

The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, through the localities’ building inspectors, will assist the health department in inspecting the smoking areas to ensure that they are complying with the law. There is a $25 civil penalty for violations.

Hagy suggested that citizens with complaints about noncompliance first call the local health department, which will work with the businesses to ensure compliance.

“We expect the majority of restaurants will think of their neighbors and think of their customers and will comply with the law,” he said.

Like any law that creates a major change in citizens’ everyday life, it has its supporters and detractors. Whatever they think of the new law, though, proprietors of area businesses are prepared to comply with it.

Esteban Morales, manager of El Cazador in Altavista, said the restaurant would be smoke free as of Dec. 1.

“Most people are happy with the new law,” he said.

He said often when the restaurant gets busy and the nonsmoking area is full, many people wait for a space on the nonsmoking side, even when there are tables available on the smoking side.

He stressed that he understands both sides of those affected by the law.

“I’m not against smokers, and I respect that they like to smoke,” he said.

Greg Toren, general manager and chef at Perky’s Restaurant in Altavista, is also ready for Dec. 1.

“We are going 100 percent smoke free,” he said.

Toren is not worried about losing business.

“I think we might gain some business from it,” he said.

Some people have told him they enjoy the food at Perky’s, but choose not to eat there with the smoke surrounding them. He hopes they will now feel comfortable enough to come in and eat.

He plans to close the restaurant for a couple of days in December to wash and repaint the walls and ceilings and do general clean up to get rid of the smell and stains of cigarette smoke.

Nick Tierney, who co-owns Altavista’s Fat Katz with several family members, is not in favor of the new law.

“We think the new law is just government getting too much in everyday life,” he said.

But he added, “We believe in following the law.”

He plans to create separate areas for smoking and nonsmoking by Dec. 1. It’s something that he must do, he said, because 80 percent of his regular clientele are smokers.

Lucinda Davis, owner of One Stop Mart in Altavista, will go completely smoke free Dec. 1.

“I see pros and cons to both sides,” she said.

She said the law is good for those with breathing problems and people who don’t smoke. But she also sympathizes with smokers who come by the store to sit and smoke and socialize. She has not gotten much negative feedback from her customers.

“No one has given me a hard time about it,” she said.

If a customer in her store lights up, she plans to tell them nicely that they can no longer smoke in her store and explain that it is state law.

For more information about the smoking ban, call the Campbell County Health Department at 434-332-9550 or 434-592-9550, the Pittsylvania County Health Department at 434-432-7232 or visit the VDH Web site at www.vdh.virginia.gov.

For Quebec inhabitants, life without nicotine appears to be softer, but for prisoners tobacco ban in prison is the end of the happy life.

Food cravings, stress, headaches, and insomnia are just some of the disorders listed by a group of prisoners unhappy with Ottawa’s ban on tobacco in federal prisons.

A group of 19 inhabitants in Quebec, including legendary drug trafficker Gerald Matticks, is behind a legal charge being heard next week against the 16-month-old ban.

The faulty gallery of thieves, murderers and drug kingpins want the ban overturned, and have hired a high-profile human-rights lawyer to represent them.

Julius Grey, a Montreal constitutional lawyer, said that the ban violates inmates’ charter rights and is discriminatory because guards can still smoke outside.

“Smoking is so politically incorrect that people forget how important it is in the lives of some people,” said Mr. Grey.

He explained that Canadian prisoners don’t lose rights other than those tied directly to their imprisonment.

As it is known the right to smoke is not an absolute right, but for prisoners it is a life choice, and it is an important life choice.

Statistics show that almost three-quarters of Canada’s federal inmates are smokers even after the total ban went into effect. An indoor smoking ban was established in 2006.

Lawyer Isabelle Turgeon is also said that the tobacco ban has reinforced tensions in prisons. Guards taunt the inmates because staff can smoke outdoors in designated areas, she said.

“Most people think prisoners should all decay. But they’re still human beings, they’re not animals. These are people who can be incarcerated for 20, 25 years. They lose their freedom, and on top of that, they can’t smoke,” she explained.

Testimonies that are part of the voluminous Federal Court file suggested that the ban is taking a toll even on some of the province’s most hardened criminals.

Mr. Matticks, known as the King of the Port of Montreal for his role in the drug trade, said that he was a pack-a-day smoker and the ban has made his time behind bars very difficult.

Correctional Services officials would not discuss the court action but said the smoking ban was established for the health and safety of both inmates and employees. It temporarily offered quit-smoking programs after the ban went into effect. Prisoners who now want buy nicotine gum must pay for it themselves through the prison canteen. However Quebec still allows smoking outdoors.

A tobacco control bill seeking to ban smoking in public places and apply other restrictions was accepted by the People’s Majlis and submitted to committee for further review on Monday.

The bill, proposed by the Government, was discussed by the Majlis members and passed with the approval of the 55 MPs who participated in the vote. There were 61 MPs in attendance when the vote took place and it was decided to send the bill to the social affairs committee.

Nearly all the MPs who spoke at the Majlis sitting agreed that the use of tobacco needed to be controlled and urged for the Bill to be passed swiftly and enforced. Although most MPs supported the legislation, many said that they felt that the provisions were too strict. The MPs said that he didn’t feel it was right to enforce such strict penalties in order to control the use of tobacco, and proposed a long term plan with milder penalties would be more successful.

Other MPs said that they felt the bill had been put together without doing adequate research, while others said that it seemed to have been drafted just for the sake of doing something.

2009-10-20, Haveeru

One of the most valuable crops that could be grown as a replacement for tobacco is hemp.

Although similar in appearance to its intoxicating cousin, it is not itself an intoxicant.

It can produce 4.1 times the fiber of trees per similar acreage, and is a source of edible oil and seed.

So many times we see articles about the legalization of medical marijuana, but hemp gets scant attention.

Yet, the real value of cannabis is in paper, clothing and food production.

This is a plant that could be saving forests and helping to eliminate hunger.

It is a plant that produces paper that doesn’t decay, durable fabrics and synthetic fuel oil.

I suspect that it could be smoked. It would probably take a pound and the effect would be mostly carbon monoxide.

Careful licensing would differentiate between legitimate growers and those clandestine farms producing “medical” marijuana.

Our farmers would have a real cash crop replacement for king tobacco.

Sometimes laws just aren’t well conceived and those prohibiting hemp production need to be revised.

This is too useful a crop to ban simply because it looks like marijuana.

September 30, 2009 Wpcva
Emory Davis
Chatham

The Baltimore City Council is set to hold hearings today on three pieces of legislation that would further restrict smoking in the city, causing some in the council to predict some heated debates in the coming months.

Council members will hear the pros and cons of a proposed bill to ban the sale of single cigars, one that prohibits flavored cigar and cigarette wrappers and legislation to ban smoking near hospitals.

“Generally, anything we do is focused on reducing cardiovascular disease,” said Interim Health Commissioner Olivia Farrow, whose department supports all three measures.

The bill she is most focused on attempts to put single cigars out of the financial reach of children by requiring manufactures to sell their products in packets of five or more. Some Baltimore stores now sell these cheap cigars for as little as 50 cents a piece, she said. A larger packet will drive up the cost, she said.

The health department already issued regulations requiring sales in packets of five or more. Those rules were set to go into effect on Thursday but the health department agreed to put off enforcing the rules until December to give the tobacco industry more time to comply.

The City Council legislation, introduced by Councilman Robert Curran, adds heft to those rules by providing the health commissioner added powers to temporarily shut down businesses that sell individual cigars and creating a $500 fine for offenders.

“That is the hammer,” Curran said.

Curran previously had introduced a similar bill, but he said that the legislation was “languishing” in the Public Safety and Health Committee chaired by Councilman Bernard “Jack” Young. So Curran made some slight changes and reintroduced it. This time it was sent to the judiciary committee chaired by Councilman James B. Kraft, which he views as a friendlier venue.

Young bristled at any suggestion that he was holding up the anti-smoking legislation, saying he was waiting for a compromise on the issue. He complained that his colleague did an “end run” by orchestrating a move to a friendlier committee. “I didn’t like it,” Young said. “There was nothing I could do about it.”

Also on the docket is a work session for another bill Curran introduced. This one prohibits smoking near hospitals and was introduced at the behest of city hospital directors, Curran said. That bill is still before Young’s Health and Public Safety Committee.

Young opposes the bill, saying that “smokers have rights, too.”

“What is the government going to stop next,” Young asked. “Drinking water?”

Also on the schedule is a hearing for Councilwoman Belinda Conaway’s proposed ban of flavored wrappers for cigars and cigarettes at most stores. The Food and Drug Administration recently banned such wrappers on cigarettes.

Copyright © 2009, Baltimore Sun

The Food and Drug Administration is looking to beef up its postmarket surveillance capabilities by requiring drug- and devicemakers to report adverse events in an electronic format. Currently, most reports are filed on paper then entered manually into the agency’s computer system.

A pilot program in place since 2000 has allowed for electronic reporting, but the FDA in August proposed rules that would force manufacturers, packers and distributors to submit reports electronically. The proposed rules do not apply to reports submitted on a voluntary basis or for reports filed under an investigational new drug application.

RALEIGH, N.C.—You’ll have to pay a little more in North Carolina the next time you purchase a computer or clothing, a pack of cigarettes or a bottle of wine.

New laws took effect Tuesday raising the sales tax rate on most goods by one penny and increasing excise taxes on tobacco products, beer, wine and liquor.

Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Beverly Perdue said they had no choice but to raise the taxes to close a budget gap. Senate Republican Leader Phil Berger says the higher taxes will delay the state’s economic recovery.

Consumers in 91 counties now pay a combined sales tax rate of 7.75 percent. Nine other counties pay slightly more. The changes don’t apply to food.

The cigarette tax is now 45 cents a pack.

MADISON, Wis. — In a move that will make Wisconsin home to the fifth highest cigarette tax in the nation, the state is set to increase its tax by 75 cents as of Sept. 1, to $2.52 per pack, according to a report by the Baraboo News Republic.

Convenience stores in the Baraboo area might have to brace for customers switching to Indian reservations or Internet sales—smokers can still get tax-free cigarettes at Whitetail Crossing & Smokeshop, located on Ho-Chunk Nation land near the casino, according to the report.

“I expect that we are going to be very busy,” said Eddie Larrea, a worker at the smoke shop, who said an average pack of cigarettes at Whitetail costs between $2 and $4.

“We have unwittingly created a large and growing black market for smuggled tobacco products,” said U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a Democrat of New York, the chief sponsor of a bill passed by the House in May that allows tougher enforcement measures against contraband cigarette sales.

The bill, which passed 397-11, is especially aimed at Internet sales, with sellers on the Internet and others shipping to remote locations, which would have to verify the purchaser’s age and identity through accessible databases. However, the measure has not yet been considered by the Senate.

Copyright © 2009 Csnews

Richard Burrows has been appointed a Non-Executive Director at British American Tobacco p.l.c. from 1 September 2009. He will become Chairman on 1 November 2009, when Jan du Plessis steps down in the light of his own appointment as Chairman of Rio Tinto plc from 20 April 2009.

Richard’s executive career has been with Irish Distillers, where he was Chief Executive from 1978 – 2000, and at Pernod Ricard SA, where he was Co-Chief Executive from 2000 – 2005, based in Paris.

His current non-executive roles include Rentokil Initial plc and Carlsberg A/S, while he was Governor of the Bank of Ireland from 2005 – 3 July 2009.

Richard is a member of the Trilateral Commission which fosters closer co-operation among democratic industrialised nations. He served as President of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation from 1998 – 2000, as Chairman of the National Development Corporation from 1984 – 1988 and Chairman of the Scotch Whisky Association 2006 – 2007.

Commenting on the appointment, Sir Nick Scheele, the Senior Independent Director at British American Tobacco, said: “Richard’s executive career in the worldwide FMCG sector makes him an excellent choice, as does his proven ability to work with a team from various cultures and countries. He is also an experienced non-executive director and the Board of British American Tobacco looks forward to the additional perspective he will be able to bring.

“On behalf of the Board, I would like to wish Jan every success as Chairman of Rio Tinto. In his five years as Chairman, British American Tobacco has performed consistently well, made two major acquisitions and delivered outstanding returns to shareholders.”

Jan du Plessis said: “I am genuinely pleased that the Board has found such an outstanding candidate to succeed me as Chairman. Richard’s experience at Pernod Ricard will be tremendously helpful to him in his new role and, with his warm personal style, his appointment will be well received in the Company.”

Richard Burrows said: “I am delighted to have been given such an exciting opportunity at such a world class company. I look forward to working with my new colleagues on the Board and getting to know the rest of the executive team led by Paul Adams.”

Copyright © 19 August 2009 Bat

A federal appeals court appeared to be inclined Wednesday to let San Francisco continue to enforce its ban on tobacco sales in drugstores.

A lawyer for Philip Morris argued to a panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that the ordinance, which took effect in October 2008, forced the tobacco company to pull its advertising out of drugstores, interfering with its constitutional right to communicate with its customers.

“Retailers will not agree to accept (display ads) for products they can’t sell,” attorney Daniel Collins said. Even if a store was willing to continue tobacco advertising, he said, “it annoys their customers, tantalizes them,” to see ads for products they can’t buy.

As a consequence, Collins argued, Philip Morris has to pay more to exercise its First Amendment right to advertise its products, because of what he described as the city’s hostility to the ads’ message.

But Judge Procter Hug, part of the three-member court panel, pointed out that the ordinance banned only tobacco sales, and the company had removed the ads on its own. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski noted that advertisers always have to decide how much they’re willing to pay to pitch their wares.

“The problem with your argument is that any time the government bans the sale of anything, it becomes a First Amendment issue,” Kozinski told Collins.

The ordinance, the first of its kind in the nation, prohibits sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products at San Francisco’s nearly 60 drugstores. It exempts supermarkets and big-box retail stores that also have pharmacies, the basis of a separate suit by Walgreens claiming unconstitutional discrimination.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge denied Walgreens’ request for an injunction to keep the ban from taking effect. A state appellate court is preparing to hear the company’s appeal.

Philip Morris also sued unsuccessfully to halt the ordinance. U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of Oakland ruled in December that San Francisco was free to prohibit conduct, such as tobacco sales, and was not trying to regulate speech.

The appeals court did not say when it would rule on Philip Morris’ appeal of Wilken’s decision.

Copyright © 2009 Sfgate

CNN and the Army official blog reported this month that the Pentagon has commissioned a new study recommending a complete ban on all tobacco products for U.S. soldiers. Smoking tobacco would be prohibited by anyone in uniform. In addition, the ban would end tobacco sales on military bases. Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith stated, “The Pentagon supports the goal of a tobacco-free military. However, achieving that goal will depend on coincident reductions of tobacco use in the civilian population.”

The study has received mixed reactions from military personnel. Many soldiers feel that an occasional cigarette should be their right. Retired Army Gen. Russel Honore said, “When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimal sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference.” Honore is well known for leading the military relief efforts in support of Hurricane Katrina and having a permanent stogie dangling from his mouth.

While a complete tobacco ban may seem harsh, the U.S. military’s general order number one, an order produced by the Commanding General of Central Command, has banned the consumption of alcohol within the Middle East combat theater since the beginning of the Global War on Terror. Soldiers did get a reprieve this past December when some troops in Iraq were allowed a maximum of two beers during the Super Bowl. Still, if no alcohol is OK, shouldn’t no tobacco be OK?

Part of the problem is that smoking has a long history in the US Army and military as a whole. Beginning towards the end of World War II and continuing through the Vietnam War up to 1972, Meals Ready to Eat (MRE’s), know as C-rations or C-rats given to soldiers as meal replacements, all contained cigarette packs. During the Vietnam War, C-rations contained four sample packs of cigarettes to include brands such as Pall Mall, Luckies, and Winston. Athough MRE’s no longer contain cigarettes, the phrase, “Smoke em’ if you got ‘em” is still commonly heard in Army formations today.

Cigarettes are the most-polluted item in the world, so needless to say, smoking is not very green. Considering that only 10 percent of cigarettes are disposed of properly, any effort to reduce the amount of waste caused by smokers is a good thing, right? That’s the thinking behind makers of several brands of e-cigarettes – a trendy new smoking alternative that dispenses nicotine through vapor, rather than smoke, in a reusable, odorless cigarette-like device. E-cigarette users can “smoke” indoors without affecting others. They never need a lighter, and prevent hundreds of butts from being stubbed out on the pavement, since the device uses rechargeable batteries and refillable cartridges.

Totally green smoking is too good to be true. Turns out, the electronic smokes – which are marketed on several websites as healthier than real cigarettes – can be as harmful as traditional kind. According to an FDA press release:

Because these products have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, at this time the agency has no way of knowing, except for the limited testing it has performed, the levels of nicotine or the amounts or kinds of other chemicals that the various brands of these products deliver to the user.

The FDA’s Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis analyzed the ingredients in a small sample of cartridges from two leading brands of electronic cigarettes. In one sample, the FDA’s analyses detected diethylene glycol, a chemical used in antifreeze that is toxic to humans, and in several other samples, the FDA analyses detected carcinogens, including nitrosamines. These tests indicate that these products contained detectable levels of known carcinogens and toxic chemicals to which users could potentially be exposed.

The harmful chemicals aren’t the only reason for the warning. “The FDA is concerned about the safety of these products and how they are marketed to the public,” said Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., commissioner of food and drugs. The e-cigarettes are sold in malls, and the flavored nicotine may entice kids. They’re also touted as “healthy,” “green,” and “environmental.” But with the wallop of chemicals inside and the battery that will find its way to a landfill, environmentally-aware smokers are trading one bad habit for another.

Traditional cigarettes, too, will tout their green credentials. American Spirit brand uses USDA-certified organic tobacco, avoiding the pesticides that other growers use (tobacco farmers use 27 million pounds of pesticides each year). American Spirit is owned by Reynolds American, though, which diminishes its green cred.

So is there an eco-friendly way to smoke? In addition to the litter, Slate’s Green Lantern urges you to consider the air pollution:

The global tobacco industry manufactures roughly 5.5 trillion cigarettes annually. Assuming that all those cancer sticks get consumed, smokers around the world spew out about 84,878 tons of fine particulate matter annually, or a little less than half of a year’s worth of emissions from American on-road vehicles.

So to answer that question: no. Whether or not the well-being of the planet provides any additional motivation, it’s time to quit for the sake of your own health.


Copyright © 2009 Usnews

By 52% to 46%, more Americans disapprove than approve of the new law expanding the federal government’s power to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. Opposition is especially strong among smokers.

These results are based on a new Gallup Poll, conducted June 14-17. Earlier this month, the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate passed bills by overwhelming majorities to increase the federal government’s ability to regulate tobacco. But apparently the public does not share the same enthusiasm for government regulation of tobacco as did Congress.

In addition to the smoker-nonsmoker difference, attitudes vary significantly according to education and political party affiliation. Whereas 62% of postgraduates approve of the new legislation, only 36% of those with a high school education or less share this view. Part of this difference may stem from the fact that those with lower levels of formal education are more likely to smoke than those with higher levels.

The differences by party affiliation are not quite as large as the educational differences, but show that a majority of Democrats approve of the new governmental powers, while most Republicans disapprove.

Few Favor Smoking Ban

Given Americans’ apparent reluctance to endorse increased government regulation of tobacco, it probably comes as no surprise that only a very small minority favor an outright ban on smoking in the United States. The poll finds just 17% of Americans saying smoking should be made “totally illegal” in this country. Gallup has never found widespread support for a universal smoking ban, ranging from 11% to the current 17%, since 1990.

Smoking Prevalence at Historical Low

According to the poll, 20% of national adults 18 and older say they have smoked cigarettes in the past week — tying a November 2007 reading for the lowest since Gallup first asked the question in 1944. The high point is 45% in 1954.

Just as the proportion of smokers is declining over time, so is the amount of smoking. Among smokers, 56% say they smoke less than a pack of cigarettes each day, while 42% smoke a pack or more. Since 1999, a majority of smokers have reported smoking less than one pack of cigarettes per day. Prior to that, most smokers reported smoking more than a pack per day.

Implications

Even as fewer Americans are smoking today than in the past, and as those who do smoke report smoking fewer cigarettes, the public appears somewhat reluctant to back policies aimed at further reducing the prevalence of smoking. A slight majority disapproves of recent legislation that gives the federal government more power to regulate tobacco, and the vast majority opposes the most extreme anti-smoking policy of a total ban on smoking in the United States.

The precise reasons for Americans’ lack of support for anti-smoking policies are unclear. However, it may be that Americans place a higher value on allowing people the freedom to choose to smoke over the public health benefits that would come from reducing smoking even further.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,011 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted June 14-17, 2009. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
Copyright © 2009 Gallup

After smoking for 20 years and quitting for 15, Regina Lenhart may smoke a cigar on occasion, but would never want to see her nieces near any tobacco products.

That’s why Ms. Lenhart is in favor of the Food and Drug Administration regulating the manufacturing and distribution of tobacco products.

“It’s a bad habit; it’s not good for you. I know it,” Ms. Lenhart said. “Anything to keep kids away from it will probably help.”

The Senate approved the bill known as the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act with a 79-17 vote last week. A similar bill was approved by the House in April, and a final resolution will be sent to President Barack Obama.

“I think it is a victory for our youth and the nonsmokers who are all affected by secondhand smoke,” said Nancy Taylor, St. Joseph-Buchanan County Health Department public information officer. “The less smokers there are, the less illnesses there will be.”

The bill calls for the FDA to regulate tobacco products by removing hazardous ingredients, restricting marketing and distribution, eliminating the use of terms such as “light,” implementing stronger warning labels and banning all flavoring other than tobacco and menthol.

“As a smoker, I personally think it’s a good thing,” said Sarah Jones, owner of St. Joseph’s Smokers Outlet on Frederick Avenue.

Ms. Jones said she thinks limiting nicotine and cutting down on marketing toward younger generations is the right step to make.

“Business-wise, though, I have mixed feelings because my customers are not youths and they do like the different flavor options and varieties,” Ms. Jones said. “I think it’s a bit unfair for them to have to change.”

Dr. Robert Permut, chief medical officer of Heartland Health, said tobacco users are at much higher risks for disease, cancer and asthma.

“The obvious aim is really at youth and young smokers and those who may get started,” Dr. Permut said. “I think all of it can help.”

Some tobacco users, such as Chuck Clouser, said the government sometimes goes too far in trying to rein in smoking.

“I have a right to make my own decisions,” Mr. Clouser said. “I think they are taxing smokers and punishing us who don’t want to quit.”

Mr. Clouser works in a nonsmoking facility, and though he remains an avid smoker, he said he does not smoke around his family and he thinks young kids are easily influenced by marketing ploys. He said that when he first started smoking, the only options available were menthol and non-menthol.

“I think by giving different flavors and everything, it is an attempt to try to capture a younger market, which I think is not good,” Mr. Clouser said.

Michael Bransfield has been smoking most of his life and said he believes most smokers agree with him that smoking is a horrible habit.

“As a father, I’d never want my kid to mess with it, so anything they can start doing now, I think it’s a good idea,” Mr. Bransfield said. “If people can be as informed as possible about how bad it is, then maybe they’ll think twice about starting a habit that is that hard to quit.”
Copyright © 2009 Stjoenews

The benchmark Nikkei average fell 1.6 percent and the broader TOPIX lost 1.9 percent on Tuesday.

The following stocks were on the move:

Nippon Suisan, a major seafood company, slipped 2.6 percent to 262 yen after it was ordered to recall some products due to mislabelling.

POWER COMPANIES, RAILWAYS GAIN ON DEFENSIVE BUYING

Tokyo Electric Power Co (TEPCO), railways and other so-called defensive shares — those seen as resilient in the face of economic turmoil — climbed in the wake of Monday’s Wall Street slide.

Tepco edged up 0.4 percent to 2,430 yen, East Japan Railway rose 0.9 percent to 5,910 yen and West Japan Railway gained 0.3 percent to 318,000 yen.

Other defensive shares gained as well. Terumo, a maker of medical equipment, gained 1 percent to 4,060 yen and personal-care product maker Kao Corp rose 0.5 percent to 2,085 yen.

Copyright © 2009 Forbes

Sweeping changes in how the government controls tobacco content and marketing are likely to be approved by the U.S. Senate this week, despite a strong last-ditch effort by tobacco interests and skepticism from some experts that smokers won’t kick their habit.

The bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives in April and due for a Senate vote as early as Tuesday, would give the Food and Drug Administration broad new authority over tobacco.

“It’s a massive move in public policy,” said Andrew Taylor, a political-science professor at North Carolina State University.

The bill would permit the FDA to limit the amount of nicotine in a product, bar advertising and marketing aimed at children, and prevent companies from making unsubstantiated claims about “reduced risk” items.

Anti-smoking activists are ecstatic. Matthew Myers, the president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, predicted that if the bill is enacted and rigorously enforced, “all the evidence is it will prompt more people to quit rather than switching to low-tar cigarettes or other tobacco products, as has happened in the past.”

Not everyone is convinced.

“The FDA is going to be giving approval of cigarettes. I think there’s really going to be a public perception that cigarettes are now safer,” said Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

This debate has been going on for decades.

In 1964, the surgeon general concluded that smoking carried severe health risks, but under pressure from tobacco interests, lawmakers the next year approved what anti-smoking interests saw as tepid health-warning labels on cigarettes.

Little by little, other measures were adopted: a ban on television advertising in 1971, stronger warning labels in 1984 and so on. The effort staggered in 2000, however, when the Supreme Court ruled that the FDA lacked authority to regulate tobacco.

This year, with a strong Democratic congressional majority and a sympathetic president, anti-tobacco activists made their crusade a priority.

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who has led the anti-tobacco fight in the Senate, described the goal: “It’s time for the tobacco industry to come up with a new business model — and this bill will force them to.”

In the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to cut off debate, progress has been difficult. Lawmakers are scheduled to vote this evening to limit debate. If that effort succeeds, swift passage should follow.

If the bill becomes law, the FDA would set up a new tobacco division, hire scientists, write regulations and collect fees from tobacco companies.

Changes in packaging would be the first thing consumers see. Warning labels would be larger, covering half the package, and more graphic. Eventually they could include pictures.

Cigarettes could no longer be labeled “light” or “low-tar.” So although Marlboro Lights and Camel Lights could still be sold, they’d have different names or new packaging.

Once the FDA begins regulating content, the chemical makeup of cigarettes could change, too, affecting their taste and, some hope, the effect they have on smokers’ health.

Cigarettes could no longer have a “characterizing” flavor other than menthol, although companies still could inject flavors as part of their blends.

And prices would go up, as tobacco companies pass along the government’s “user fees” to consumers.

Critics contend that tobacco should not be part of the FDA’s mission, and worry that the changes could be costly in tobacco-growing states such as Kentucky and North Carolina.

Sex, lies, the Italian mafia, millions of packs of Marlboro cigarettes, and billion-dollar profits are all rolled into the plot of one of Europe’s largest smuggling operations in recent years, where trials in both Italy and Switzerland are under way.

At the center of it all: the head of state for one of Europe’s smallest but most beautiful countries, the coastal nation of Montenegro, the backdrop to the 2006 James Bond film, “Casino Royale.”

Based on hundreds of pages of wiretap transcripts, law enforcement reports, and indictments, the scandal sounds like a screenplay. Between 1994 and 2002 tobacco smuggling became a state enterprise of Montenegro, allegedly controlled by Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic and an inner circle of Montenegrin officials, according to newly released Italian court records obtained by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), a project of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2009 Aabcnews