Since gaining a tremendous share of market from supermarkets and drug stores in the last decade, the c-store industry’s share of the tobacco category, particularly cigarettes, has been stable. But last April’s increase in federal excise taxes (FET), further restrictions on public smoking and changing consumer preferences are stirring the pot.

On the radar: Some headway by the drug channel in cigarette sales, and greater consumer interest in other tobacco products (OTP), which is lifting sales at tobacco outlet stores and infiltrating convenience store strategies.

According to industry market share figures provided by c-store wholesaler Eby-Brown Co., the c-store/gas segment holds a 67-percent share of the cigarette market, up from 55 percent in 1998. Tobacco outlets account for 10 percent of the market — the same as a decade ago — and supermarket and grocery combined account for 9 percent, down from 22 percent. The drug channel accounts for 5 percent, up 1 percentage point, while liquor stores and “all other” retail sites maintained market share at 3 percent and 6 percent, respectively.

Sales in the last 10 months, though, have been shaken by unexpected, fast-changing shifts in consumer demand following the FET increase.

At United Refining Co. of Pa., operator of more than 290 Kwik Fill/Red Apple Stores and 25 Smoker Outlets tobacco stores, cigarette volume fell quickly, as smokers cut back or went to other sources, such as the Internet or Native American stores, after the FET increase, according to Cliff Brazie, director of retail marketing at the company. However, thanks to rethinking the generic category, aggressive promotional activity and additional buydowns, the retailer recovered to within 3 percent of last year’s cigarette volume.

Sales in Kwik Fill/Red Apple Stores were strong last January through March, fell drastically after federal and state tax increases, whimpered through the summer, then began moving again last September. “We moved as many promotions out of Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds as we could,” Brazie said. “The Indian reservations can’t tap into these promotions, so offering $2 off a pack was significant for our customers.”

Lorillard’s buydown allowances also helped the chain, especially on the Newport brand. Particularly powerful was the introduction of Liggett’s Pyramid, which Kwik Fill/Red Apple began promoting in June. The stores displayed 38- by 48-inch signs outside that read “You deserve a bailout too,” offering Pyramid at a very competitive price.

“They were the least expensive cigarette I could offer our customers,” Brazie said.

Despite such creative marketing by c-store operators, the industry continues to buzz about Walgreens’ attempts to increase its cigarette sales and the drug channel’s threat. Total tobacco and tobacco accessory unit sales in drug stores (with at least $1 million in sales) grew nearly 12 percent for the 52 weeks ending Nov. 28, 2009, according to Nielsen. Unit sales of cigarettes were up nearly 14 percent, while chewing tobacco unit sales rose 10 percent.

Indeed, drug store customers spend almost twice the amount on cigarettes as on cold/allergy remedies, according to The Nielsen Co. Tobacco also accounted for nearly $3 billion in sales as of August 2009, an increase of 18 percent from the year before.

But some industry players see little threat from drug stores. “It will be a battle between the c-store channel and the tobacco outlet channel to win over the consumer who has been abandoned by drug, grocery and mass merchant,” said Frank Davoli, director of purchasing for South Bend, Ind.-based Richmond-Master Distributors Inc., a supplier that owns and operates 10 Bonkers c-stores and 37 Low Bob’s Discount Tobacco stores, plus has another 85-plus Low Bob’s Discount Tobacco licensee sites.

Shoring up the discount tobacco channel: growing demand for OTP products. OTP sales were up nearly 5 percent in c-stores for the 52 weeks ending Oct. 31, 2009, according to Nielsen. Behind this growth was a 5.7-percent increase in cigars, 7.7-percent gain in papers and 4.1-percent bump in smokeless tobacco.

The April FET increase has some consumers moving to smokeless, cigars and pipe tobacco, which roll-your-own smokers are using instead of higher-priced cigarette tobacco, Davoli noted. Also on Davoli’s watch list: Camel Snus, which gained wider distribution last winter, and new dissolvable products by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The tobacco store channel has shrunk in recent years, accounting for 12 percent of the tobacco market today, down from a high of 16 percent in 2001, after which manufacturers no longer offered the channel special allowances based on the size of their inventory. Even so, survivors are positioned to gain market share, as they offer more variety and adults shop freely in stores that require consumers to be of legal age to enter, Davoli noted.

To keep up with the quick-changing dynamics of the tobacco category, Richmond-Master Distributing changes tobacco planograms daily. “It sounds nuts, but we went through a three-to-four month period where even the manufacturers were caught short on OTP products,” Davoli said. “We thought the excise tax increase would wipe the OTP category out, but we saw the opposite. We learned a big lesson: Consumer moves are not always predictable and we better move fast.”

One prime example was huge increases in pipe tobacco sales. “We reset the roll-your-own and pipe tobacco section five times between April and January,” Davoli said.

The emergence of large-filter cigars also happened quickly. “As little cigars increased at retail more than $1 a pack, many shoppers shifted to large-filter cigars,” Davoli said. “That is a segment that popped up overnight. If you were an operator who was aware of that, you gained new customers. But reaction time had to be very quick.”

At United Refining’s convenience stores, Brazie has seen “a nice increase” in sales of cigars of all types and of Copenhagen Wintergreen, “which has soared. Our customers see cigars as a treat they deserve, unlike cigarettes. Now Swisher and other OTP makers are stepping up with promotions and new products, making the segment very competitive.”

A change in the tobacco company’s strategies has led Brazie to adapt new cigarette sets in the convenience stores and Smoker Outlet sites. “We had 8 feet of cigarette packs and 10 feet of cartons in our Smoker Outlet sites. We are adjusting our sets to provide more room for new opportunities in OTP.

“Manufacturers are emphasizing OTP now, wanting us to take out cigarette SKUs,” he said. “They want us to scale back on cartons and scale up on OTP — for good reason.”

By Barbara Grondin Francella, Csnews
March 01, 2010

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Kanawha County health officials are setting themselves up to lead the push for statewide smoking regulations.

But they need to start small.

“It’s got to be done very cautiously,” said Dr. Rahul Gupta, chief health officer for the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. “You’ve got to have the right timing for it, and you’ve got to have public opinion on your side.”

Last week, Sen. Dan Foster, D-Kanawha, introduced a bill banning smoking statewide. But Foster conceded the bill had little chance of passing, and was introduced mainly to spur discussion of smoking as a public health issue.

Foster believes the key to passing workable statewide smoking regulations — that aren’t rife with exemptions — is in concentrating on passing tough county-by-county regulations. By the time 35 or 40 counties pass tougher smoking bans, Foster thinks there will be enough public support to go statewide.

“It will be politically doable by then,” said Foster, a surgeon and hospital administrator.

Gupta agrees that grass-roots support is necessary before lawmakers can be convinced to pass statewide smoking regulations. “You can do it top-down or bottom-up,” he said. “What we’re proposing is bottom-up.”

Kanawha County officials passed a countywide smoking ban that includes bars and restaurants in 2008. Now that residents and business owners are used to the idea of a smoke-free environment, county health officials want to expand their duties to include a comprehensive approach to tobacco use in the county.

In addition to enforcing anti-smoking regulations, health officials want to start educational programs to talk about the dangers of smoking and provide services to help smokers who want to quit. Eventually, Gupta wants to get state funding for smoking cessation services that go beyond pamphlets and provide counseling, nicotine patches or other supplies to help smokers quit smoking.

Gupta wants Kanawha County to serve as a model that other counties in the state can follow for their own smoking regulations. Cabell County officials passed a smoking ban that includes bars on Jan. 27. Kanawha County health officials have been talking with officials in Monongalia County about smoking regulations similar to Kanawha County’s.

Gupta admits current smoking regulations aren’t perfect. Smoking is still allowed in Kanawha County bingo halls under state law. And lawmakers still smoke in the state Capitol in Charleston.

“They’ve basically exempted themselves from the county policy,” Gupta said. Members of the Kanawha County health board voted Thursday to publicly censure the Legislature for smoking in the statehouse.

But once enough counties pass smoking bans, Gupta thinks there will be enough public support to go to the Legislature for strong statewide smoking regulations.

“It won’t be in the next year or two,” he said. “We do need state regulations for smoking, but now is not the time.”

What county health officials don’t want is a statewide smoking ban full of exemptions that doesn’t allow counties to pass tougher rules. That’s why tough county policies already in place and public support for tough regulations are important before pushing for statewide legislation.

“I think we’re well-positioned to start to push this a little bit,” Gupta said.

By Rusty Marks
February 7, 2010

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration can no longer regulate electronic cigarettes, according to a court ruling last week.

Electronic cigarettes, or e-cigs, are battery-powered machines that deliver a hit of nicotine vapor, according to the FDA. The FDA had previously tried to seize imports of them, but it no longer can as a result of this ruling by U.S. District Judge Richard Leon.

Dillon Summers, an employee at Plantations Inc., a tobacco store in Sooner Mall, said he has seen an increased demand for the product from Norman residents and OU students.

Plantations Inc. does not carry e-cigs but “we do have a lot of people coming in looking for them,” Summers said.

Although Summers agreed with the ruling, he said, the store continues not to sell them because of prior bad experiences with manufacturers.

“We used to sell them, but we stopped because [the manufacturers] changed the nicotine levels on us without telling us,” Summers said.

The Internet seems to be the only place to find them in Oklahoma, Summers said.

USACIG Inc., a company that sells e-cigs, said it was excited by the ruling.

“This opens up the door for our company so that no bureaucracy will slow down our progress of launching our products in the U.S.,” stated Peter Michaels, USACIG Inc president.

Not everyone is on board with the recent ruling.

Doug Matheny, chief of Tobacco Use Prevention Service for the Oklahoma State Health Department, said e-cigs should still be regulated, just like similar products.

“I admit that they are not as dangerous without the smoke,” Matheny said. “But the makers of the product are walking a fine line. They are careful not to claim them as cessation products because then they would have to be regulated … but they do tend to promote them as something to get a nicotine fix when smoking is not allowed.”

Matheny said he had concerns people may think the products are safe to use, even though he does not think they are.

“It is an addictive product,” Matheny said. “It has not been tested to show its relative safety. You would think it would be safer, but that certainly doesn’t mean it’s safe, if that makes sense.”

The FDA stated in a press release they consider the devices to be like nicotine gum or patches, which currently are regulated. Because of the similarity, the FDA said it should be allowed to regulate e-cigs as well.

The FDA’s biggest concern is the unregulated devices might actually increase addiction or the number of young people smoking, according to a press release.

Biochemical engineering senior Yi Yang said he had not heard of electronic cigarettes but is against smoking, especially because of the negative health side effects, such as secondhand smoke.

Kathleen Evans/The Daily
January 26, 2010

TOPEKA | Kansas’ governor has given a boost to an ongoing campaign for a statewide smoking ban, but supporters still have to overcome the opposition — and perhaps ingenuity — of business owners like Sharon Suwalski.

After Topeka banned smoking last year in bars and restaurants but not tobacco shops, Suwalski and her husband laid down blue tape to separate his tobacco counter from her bar inside their Hot Pockets billiard hall. She said Thursday that the tape also should allow customers inside the tobacco shop’s designated area to smoke under proposals before the Legislature.

Gov. Mark Parkinson lifted public health advocates’ hopes by declaring in his annual State of the State address that he wants a strong statewide ban on smoking in public places. Two such proposals passed the Senate last year; both await a House vote.

They face criticism from some business owners and state residents who see a ban as too much meddling in their lives. Suwalski watched Parkinson’s speech on television and remembered thinking, “He’s crazy.”

“There are places where people expect to be able to smoke,” she said. “If they can’t smoke in here, I’m not going to have any customers.”

Kansas legislators have seriously considered statewide rules on smoking for the past five years as local governments have enacted ordinances. Three counties and 36 cities have imposed limits on smoking in public places, and their restrictions apply to 55 percent of the state’s population.

Supporters of a statewide ban view it as a public health measure that will protect Kansas residents — particularly workers — from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke. They were pleased with Parkinson’s endorsement, though he wasn’t specific about the details of a ban.

“He wants a bill that’s written from a public health perspective,” said Mary Jayne Hellebust, lobbyist for the Tobacco Free Kansas Coalition.

Twenty-four states ban smoking in restaurants and bars, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation. Parkinson noted in his address that North Carolina joined the list this year.

“If North Carolina, the largest tobacco-producing state in the country, can enact a public smoking ban, surely we can do it in Kansas,” Parkinson said. “I don’t want to see a watered-down public smoking ban, one that’s written by the tobacco industry and full of loopholes that isn’t a real ban.”

Both bills before the Legislature would exempt tobacco shops from a ban, as the Topeka ordinance does. In Hot Pockets, the thin, blue line of tape runs over gray carpet and down the center of tables as it outlines a cozy, 10-foot-by-10-foot square for the tobacco shop. The bar is outside the line, but only a short toss of a peanut away.

Suwalski acknowledged she wouldn’t oppose a state law if it exempted both bars and tobacco shops. But Tom Jacob, owner of the Cigar Chateau in Wichita, said the state should leave such decisions to local governments, which can work out compromises with local businesses.

Some Kansas residents don’t want even local governments to impose restrictions.

“I am just really fed up with government kind of encroaching on everybody’s personal rights and their freedoms,” said Gail Trembley, a smoker and Topeka resident who’s leading a campaign to repeal that city’s ordinance.

But advocates of statewide restrictions argue that most Kansas want public places to be smoke-free and that workers in bars and restaurants have a right to clean air. They believe Parkinson’s support will help.

“He is obviously looking for a good bill,” Hellebust said. “That certainly would favor public health advocates.”

Smoking bills are SB 25 and HB 2221, as amended by the Senate.

On the Net: Kansas Legislature: http://www.kslegislature.org

Imagine a middle-aged man who becomes partially disabled and unable to work full time. He has no pension, and when Social Security kicks in it won’t make ends meet. Fortunately, he receives a disability settlement that will pay a guaranteed amount over several years and possibly lesser amounts thereafter.

Should he fritter this away by living large while the money lasts, or sock it away for the leaner times he knows are coming? If he does the former, should his long-suffering wife go along for the ride or clobber him?

This more or less describes the Michigan Legislature’s relationship with the tobacco lawsuit settlement money the state began collecting after 1998 as compensation for past “damages” incurred through Medicaid and other state medical welfare payments to individuals with smoking-related illnesses. Michigan’s share is about $280 million annually for 26 years, and perhaps lesser amounts thereafter.

Our politicians have not recognized the temporary nature of this windfall and placed most of it in a reserve fund. Every penny so far has been spent, and legislators have actually borrowed against future settlement cash to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on wrongheaded “economic development” programs, tourism industry subsidies and to avoid spending cuts.

When the settlement was announced in late 1998, it was like chum dumped into shark-infested waters: Hungry special interests began circling the state Capitol.

Setting the money away in a “rainy day” fund was never in the political cards — the political rewards for feeding the sharks were just too attractive to lawmakers. Gov. John Engler recognized this and forestalled the frenzy by proposing to use most of the revenue to pay for college scholarships for students who did well on the Michigan Educational Assessment Program tests. Most of the balance went to Medicaid health care programs.

But the sharks began nibbling around the edges. In 2005, the Legislature created at Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s request the 21st Century Jobs Fund business subsidy program, a hodge-podge of spending with little oversight. To pay for it they borrowed $400 million against future tobacco settlement proceeds.

To avoid spending cuts in the 2007 budget, the Legislature approved another $415 million in borrowing against future tobacco money. In 2008, legislators pulled out this same credit card, using it to buy $60 million in tourism ads (the “Pure Michigan” and related campaigns).

The result of all this borrowing is that for the next couple decades, some $80 million of the annual tobacco money will be unavailable to current and future taxpayers. Instead, debt service payments will draw off funds that otherwise could provide state services or even tax relief.

The consequences hit home in this year’s budget, when the college scholarship deal devised by Engler and later expanded by Granholm got the ax. That’s too bad for middle-class families — and perhaps even more unfortunate for the gold-plated state university budgets that ultimately reaped this money — but the program had become an unaffordable luxury for an increasingly bankrupt state.

Unfortunately, the tobacco lawsuit money that funded the scholarships will be used to prop up unreformed state government spending for another year. This is hardly surprising: If politicians couldn’t resist spending the windfall back in the fat years of the late 1990s, they have even less incentive to do so now.

Still, it would be nice if they at least used the money for something other than avoiding reforms. For example, the $80 million that won’t go to Promise grant scholarships this year would have made a nice down payment toward transitioning school employees from defined benefit pensions into 401(k)-type accounts.

Michigan taxpayers should stop suffering in silence. While someone else is spending the tobacco settlement windfall like there’s no tomorrow, we must choose between going quietly along for the ride or lowering the boom.
By Jack McHugh, December 04. 2009

Yesterday was the 34th Great American Smokeout, the annual event that encourages smokers to kick cigarettes for 24 hours or set a date for being tobacco-free.

Congratulations and good luck to those who have chosen to take part. You deserve all the praise and support you can get.

One resource is the Kansas Tobacco Quitline at (800) QUIT-NOW (784-8669) or (866) KAN STOP (526-7867) which offers free tobacco cessation and coaching services from experienced counselors.

The program offers one-on-one calling sessions for smokers to map out a quitting strategy and then deal with cravings as they wean themselves off of nicotine. Smokers can enroll 24 hours a day, and all calls are tailored to participants’ schedules.

Studies strongly suggest such programs can work wonders, doubling the chance of making a successful break from tobacco.

State officials said a survey showed that, of participants who received four or more counseling sessions between June 2006 and May 2007, 46 percent were able to quit using tobacco within three months.

And that’s not the only help available. Smokers can find tips and methods for quitting at the Great American Smokeout Web site, greatamericansmokeout.org, where there’s also a toll-free telephone counseling program.

There’s plenty to gain from quitting. The American Cancer Society says smokers who quit at age 35 gain an average of eight years of life expectancy, while those who kick the habit at 55 buy an average of five more years. Even longtime smokers who quit at 65 get an average of three more years of life.

“We know that quitting smoking is tough and that most smokers have to try several times before quitting for good,” said Alan G. Thorson, MD, FACS, national volunteer president for the American Cancer Society, in a news release. “The American Cancer Society offers a variety of effective resources ranging from online tips and tools to personalized telephone coaching by trained specialists. We hope that smokers will use the Great American Smokeout to map out a course of action that will help them to quit, and in turn to stay well and celebrate more birthdays.”

The smokeout comes a week after the Centers for Disease Control released statistics showing the movement toward reducing smoking was hitting a wall. The report said slightly under 21 percent of Americans were smoking in 2008, up slightly from 2007. It was the first increase in adult smoking since 1994.

The smoking rate has plummeted since the mid-1960s, when about 40 percent of American adults were smokers, but it’s been stubbornly hovering around 21 percent in recent years.

Kansas is below the national average, at 17.9 percent, which is good news. The bad news is the rate was exactly the same in 2007 and has been bouncing around the 17 to 20 percent range for years.

So here’s hoping the Great American Smokeout draws good participation this year.

If more Kansans can quit smoking, any irritability they display today will be quickly forgotten.

While almost all of Asia has ratified the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) and is moving to implement the WHO treaty FCTC, the global tobacco industry is intensifying is grip on Asia.

Tabinfo Asia 2009, a tobacco convention, is calling itself ‘one of the most important events held in one of the world’s most important tobacco regions. Tab Info is not open to the public health community. However, it will address topics that are of grave concern to public health. This is our interpretation of what the programme will address:

- ‘Tobacco industry in charge of the health system’? Leaving the health system in the hands of the tobacco industry is ludicrous. That is exactly what the tobacco industry is imagining at one session at Tab Info with the theme ‘What if the tobacco industry was ‘in charge of a country’s health system – what would they do about smoking?’

We doubt it will acknowledge responsibility for over five million deaths per year and many millions of patients from smoking.

- ‘Behaviour modification’: The tobacco industry misleads with scary terminology. The FCTC calls on parties to ban advertising and make public and work places smoke-free. However, the industry is calling this ’state-sponsored behaviour modification’.

(Wikipedia definition of behaviour modification: ‘altering an individual’s behaviors and reactions to stimuli through positive and negative reinforcement of adaptive behavior and/or the reduction of maladaptive behavior through punishment and/or therapy’).

- ‘What’s New on the Product Front”: The tobacco industry’s profit is from nicotine addiction. The industry wants to addict new smokers, keep current smokers addicted and do this in a creative manner. So it will look at current and future innovations in sustaining addiction through ‘nicotine delivery systems’.

- Cigarettes are hazardous and kill half their smokers prematurely. But British-American Tobacco (BAT) is leading the discussion on ‘Harm and Risk Reduction’ and the question a panel will address is whether enough attention is being paid to this topic by governments, NGOs, growers, manufacturers and the media.

What a cruel irony for the tobacco industry to be talking about harm reduction when it continues to fight government efforts to reduce tobacco use.

- ‘Can packaging get more creative’? This session where probably address how to overcome or further dilute the impact of graphic warnings on packs. We see new cigarette pack designs that obscure the health warnings in the market. This session will plan how to make more attractive cigarette packs and not to pay attention to the health warnings.

- Wiping the regulatory slate clean? There will be a Regulatory Workshop that invites participants to wipe the regulatory slate clean and start afresh. The industry perhaps would like to wipe out the FCTC because it is asking participants to ‘Imagine if you were drafting a whole new regulatory framework what would it look like?’

The Democracy Institute, US, best known to have fought tobacco control efforts in the US, will lead the discussion on how to fight global tobacco control regulation.

- ‘Two Views of SE Asia’: Over ‘a delightful buffet breakfast’, the Thai Tobacco Monopoly and BAT will discuss how to fight legislation and increase profits in this region. The Thai Tobacco Monopoly may acknowledge how it lost many battles in Thailand. BAT may not share its experience in delaying and diluting legislation in Malaysia over many years.

- ‘China: an Insight’: About one million people die from smoking-related diseases in China every year. But that is not what the industry will discuss in the session, ‘What’s happening in the industry in the world’s biggest market?’

It won’t refer to ‘Eyes on the prize: Transnational tobacco companies in China 1976-1997′ by O’Sullivan B and Chapman S.

- ‘Operating in a World of Bans’: Plain packaging is inevitable since the industry is fighting graphic warnings and already obscuring pictorial messages. This is a nightmare to the industry and it has to find ways to fight plain-packaging in this session.

The industry is ‘promising a fun, productive workshop’ led by John Luik, who is notorious for countering tobacco control.

Joy F Alampay
Nov 10, 09

Tobacco farming was once a way of life for many in the Pee Dee region. Today, farmlands in this area are no longer dominated by tobacco, though traces of the crops past dominance are evident. Tobacco barns dot our landscape, and a heritage trail in the honor of the crop runs from I-95 in Darlington County to US501 along the Grand Stand.

On Thursday from 5:30 to 7 p.m., the Black Creek Arts Center will host an opening reception for Tobacco Barns of the Pee Dee at 116 West College Avenue in Hartsville. Visually, this exhibit highlights the structures that transformed a harvested crop into a commodity that people depended on – as income and consumable good.
The exhibit, produced by BCAC and funded in part by the Humanities Council of South Carolina and the S.C. Department of Parks, Recreation & Tourism, features the photography of Benton Henry. Henry, a native of Latta, has a tremendous collection of photographs of tobacco barns.
“These photos are a small, representative sample of the overall collection,“ Bruce Douglas of BCAC said. “There are hundreds more of the same quality as the ones we have on display. Narrowing them down was the hardest part of the project.“

The narrowing down of the photos was carried out by Henry, Douglas and Coker College Art Professor Jim Boden.

“We wanted the exhibit’s level of artistic quality to be on par with the historical significance of the subject matter,“ Douglas said. “That’s why we got Jim involved.“
Also working on the project was Dr. Wink Prince of Coastal Carolina University. Prince wrote the interpretive text that accompanies the exhibit. Prince’s credentials in tobacco farming in the South are unparalleled. His book, “Long Green: The Rise and Fall of Tobacco in South Carolina,” is widely considered the authority on the subject. Prince was interviewed by Walter Edgar of ETV’s Walter Edgar’s Journal about his involvement with the exhibit.
In addition to Henry’s work, a series of photos by Cliff Jones will be on display in the Arts Center’s upstairs gallery. Jones won two awards during The Carolinas II photography contest this summer.

The exhibits will remain at BCAC for the month of November. The center is open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and 3 to 6 p.m. Tuesday through Thursday and 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday.

By Messenger Staff Reports
November 2, 2009

The TTPP, also known as tobacco buy-out, provides approximately $10 billion in 10 annual installments to eligible tobacco quota holders and producers from 2005 through 2014.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack is reminding tobacco quota holders and producers not currently enrolled in the Tobacco Transition Payment Program (TTPP) they have until Nov. 2, 2009, to sign-up to receive a 2010 TTPP payment.

The TTPP, also known as the tobacco buy-out, provides approximately $10 billion in 10 annual installments to eligible tobacco quota holders and producers from 2005 through 2014. Payments for 2010 through 2014 will be issued annually in January.

USDA also reminds tobacco quota holders and producers they have until Nov. 2, 2009, to sell their remaining five annual payments to a successor to receive a lump-sum payment. Certain requirements must be met to qualify for lump-sum payments. More information on lump-sum payments is available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/tobacco or by calling the USDA Farm Service Agency at (202) 720-7901. Contract holders who do not complete this process by Nov. 2, 2009, can arrange for the sale of their remaining four payments beginning Jan. 19, 2010.

The TTPP marks the end of federal tobacco marketing quota and price support loan programs. This program helps American tobacco quota holders and producers transition to the free market. Payments are made from assessments on tobacco product importers and manufacturers.

For more information about TTPP, please visit your FSA county office or http://www.fsa.usda.gov/tobacco.

LOS ANGELES, – Los Angeles DUI attorney Lawrence Taylor, author of the legal textbook Drunk Driving Defense, claims that smokers arrested for DUI may have false high results from breathalyzer tests.

Breath machines don’t actually measure alcohol, Taylor says. They are actually designed to detect any compound containing the methyl group in its molecular structure and to assume that it is alcohol. They cannot distinguish the difference between alcohol and, among many other compounds, acetaldehyde.

Acetaldehyde is produced in the liver in small amounts as a by-product in the metabolism of alcohol. Unfortunately, the DUI lawyer says, alcohol moving from the blood into the lungs has been found to metabolize there as well. And scientists have found that acetaldehyde concentrations in the lungs of smokers are greater than for non-smokers – far greater. Translated: smokers arrested for DUI are more likely to have falsely high readings on a breathalyzer. “Origin of Breath Acetaldehyde During Ethanol Oxidation: Effect of Long-Term Cigarette Smoking”, 100 Journal of Laboratory Clinical Medicine 908.

The Los Angeles DUI lawyer points to another scientific study that found cigarette smoking can influence absorption by the body of alcohol — and thus attempts to estimate earlier blood alcohol levels when driving based upon levels when tested. Johnson et al., “Cigarette Smoking and Rate of Gastric Emptying: Effect on Alcohol Absorption”, 302 British Medical Journal 20.

The researchers reported testing blood samples of a group of smokers both after smoking and after prolonged abstinence. The result was that “areas under the venous blood alcohol concentration-time curves between zero and 30 minutes and 60 minutes and the peak blood alcohol concentrations were significantly less during the smoking period compared with the non-smoking period.”

The scientists concluded that the effect of smoking on alcohol absorption has “considerable social and medicolegal relevance”, and that the ingestion of nicotine should be taken into account when dealing with legal issues involving alcohol metabolism. In other words, Taylor says, attempts to estimate blood-alcohol levels of a DUI defendant when driving are highly unreliable.

For more information, visit the law firm’s website at http://losangeles.duicentral.com/ . Inquiries may be directed to the firm’s main Los Angeles office: 562.989.4774.

About THE LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE TAYLOR

With a national reputation and the highest professional ratings, The Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor has specialized in DUI defense exclusively for 29 years. The firm’s California DUI defense attorneys serve clients statewide from offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, Orange County, Riverside and San Francisco.

SOURCE The Law Offices of Lawrence Taylor

This past Saturday, after an extremely satisfying football game between the University of Washington and the University of Southern California, KXLY switched programming to The Insider Weekend. Being too lazy to readjust my TV antenna to another station, I continued to watch. The show began a segment surrounding the death of actor Patrick Swayze. For those who do not know, the actor died recently from complications arising from pancreatic cancer. Swayze, a long time smoker, admitted in January that “probably smoking had something to do” with his illness, but in the face of death, he chose to continue living his life. Swayze was spotted smoking in February.

It is tragic when anyone dies before his or her time, and his family should be respectfully left to grieve. If only they were.

During the segment, two talking heads began a heated debate over whether Swayze should have smoked or not. The host even went so far as to ask, “Why kill yourself?” She made it clear she opposed smoking and anyone who partook. Obviously there is some fairly convincing proof habitual smoking, especially cigarette smoking, can be extremely hazardous to ones health, but many activities can be hazardous to ones health, or even life.

Sun tanning, over working and eating fatty foods can all have hazardous effects on a person’s health and even cause death. The simple fact is, smoking is bad for you, but what is not bad for you, is if Patrick Swayze smokes. As the guest said, “It’s his life.”

In modern society we have tolerance and acceptance drilled into our heads. If we don’t accept and embrace another person’s life choice, we are socially ostracized and labeled bigots.

Imagine what would happen if that host asked someone with a tan or someone a bit on the bigger size why they want to kill themselves. It is unheard of to suggest that those people change their lifestyles, but smokers are another story.

It is socially acceptable to look down on smokers. They are forced to hide their choice. One cannot go through life without being constantly bombarded with anti-smoking commercials. We even pass laws forbidding the practice in privately owned buildings. Imagine if we outlawed long hair or colorful clothing; there would be a massive uproar.

But there won’t be any uproar for those filthy smokers, the one group of people who do not get the luxury of social acceptance.

WASHINGTON, – The following is a statement by Matthew L. Myers, President, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids:

Avis Rent-A-Car’s famous advertising slogan “We Try Harder” was never more apt than it is right now. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids applauds Avis Budget Group, Inc. for its announcement today that beginning October 1st, 2009, all Avis and Budget rental vehicles in the United States and Canada will be smoke-free.

By prohibiting smoking in its entire North American rental fleet, Avis will not only be saving on cleaning costs, it will be making renting a car a healthier and far more pleasurable experience for its customers.

In ridding Avis and Budget rental cars of the 4000 chemicals, including over 60 carcinogens, in secondhand smoke, Avis is protecting the rights of all of its customers to breathe clean air. A recent study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health concluded that concentrations of secondhand smoke are significantly higher in cars than concentrations generally measured in bars, restaurants and other public places that allow smoking. In addition, residues from secondhand smoke can remain on cushions and fabrics long after secondhand smoke has cleared.

Avis Budget Group Inc. obviously cares about its customers .They do Try Harder. We hope Avis’s announcement will spur other rental car companies to follow Avis’s lead and make their rental fleets smoke-free as well. It will make renting a car a far healthier and far more pleasurable experience for all consumers.

Copyright © 2009 Prnewswire

Last year, Duma, the lower chamber of Russian Parliament adopted the WHO Convention on Tobacco Control. Therefore, in conformity with the convention, the lawmakers should implement a comprehensive ban on advertising and promotion of tobacco products. In addition, they will have to prohibit sales of tobacco products to adolescents, increase excise taxes and implement other anti-smoking ordinances.

So, Russian legislators introduced a draft for the legislation to comply with the Convention. It would become valid within a year after the approval and provides regulations necessary for gradual transition to rigorous WHO requirements. The legislation contains provisions regarding the size of health warnings on cigarette packs and the amount of nicotine in tobacco products.

Approximately 60 percent of male population and 35 percent of female Russians light up regularly. It puts the country in the list of the nations with the highest tobacco use per capita. Only three countries are dealing with higher smoking rates: Serbia, Bulgaria and Bulgaria, but the latter two nations already implemented drastic anti-smoking measures.

Thus, Duma Public Health Committee already started drafting a law to restrict tobacco use in the country.

According to the draft, the sales of tobacco products would be limited only to stores, puffing in public areas would be prohibited and cigarette advertising would be banned.

“Such drastic measures make up the only effective way to prevent young generations from picking up the hazardous habit,” said Sergey Novoselov, Public Health Committee spokesman.

He added that it would be much more efficient to increase cigarette taxes gradually but continuously to avoid smuggling and growth of black-market.

Cigarettes cost much cheaper in Russia than in other developed nations, with some brands can be bought by as little as 20 cents per pack, making easily available to minors, who can buy cigarettes everywhere from small kiosks to stores and even from street distributors.

Legislators plan rising cigarette tax by up to 70 percent of their price within the nearest future.

Experts admit that in case taxes are increased above the rate of inflation, many smokers could not afford them, which must make them give up smoking. The tax increase would also help generating more than 125 billion roubles ($35 billion) annually, which is especially important for the cash-strapped country.

Pavel Gerasimenko, Chairman of Public Health Ministry mentioned that the lawmakers would also modify existing law «On Tobacco Smoking” to force tobacco companies to place larger health warnings, which should cover 50 percent of the pack instead of current 30 percent.

And finally, the authority to decide what public places should become smoke-free would be passed to municipalities.

Columbus — Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland says the state will appeal a county judge’s decision barring the use of tobacco foundation funds to help balance the budget.

“This judge has in my judgment no right to say how the Legislature and the governor should be expending public tax resources,” Strickland said Aug. 11 shortly after the decision was released. “He had a legal decision to reach, and I think he interjected himself quite inappropriately in an area that was rightfully the responsibility of the Legislature and the executive.”

Nearly a decade ago, lawmakers appropriated about $235 million in tobacco settlement payments into an endowment fund for use by a statewide foundation to support programs aimed at curbing tobacco use.

But last year, lawmakers and Strickland moved to use the endowment funds as part of a job stimulus package. They subsequently liquidated the endowment and abolished the foundation, prompting legal action by the latter to stop the move.

In his decision on the lawsuit, Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David W. Fais ruled that lawmakers and the governor had other funding options and did not need to liquidate the tobacco endowment.

He also noted that action would cause irreparable harm to individuals who rely on foundation programs “to become and remain tobacco free,” according to documents. “… Depletion of the endowment fund and discontinuance or reduction of the tobacco prevention and cessation programs funded by the endowment fund would result in a substantial increase in tobacco-related premature death and disease in Ohio and result in a substantial increase in medical expense for both Ohioans and the state of Ohio for treatment of tobacco-related disease.”

Strickland said he doesn’t think the ongoing legal battle will have an immediate effect on state spending. A total of $258.6 million in tobacco foundation funds were earmarked in the recently enacted two-year budget to pay for Medicaid services, child and adult protective programs and cancer screenings.

“His ruling is not a surprise, but I am terribly disappointed quite frankly that this judge took 18 months to reach a decision that he should have been able to reach rather quickly,” Strickland said, adding, “I’m glad that we finally have a decision so we can get it to another court. I continue to feel very confident that when this is finally resolved that it will be in a way that will enable us to use these precious resources to continue to provide the auxiliary services ….”

Senate President Bill Harris, R-Ashland, agreed with Strickland’s decision to appeal.

“I’m very surprised that that’s his ruling,” he said. “I think the objective was that those dollars could be used very effectively to support a shortfall in the budget. I think we’re taking lots of action to continue to encourage people not to smoke.”

Copyright © 2009 Stowsentry

Cigarettes cost a dollar more a pack, but is that enough to make smokers cut back? The state tax increase took effect July 1st, and it’s already affecting Panhandle residents.

“It went up tremendously,” said Bay County resident Douglas Crosby, “It’s something to pay six dollars for a pack of cigarettes.”

State officials are expected to release their exact numbers from the first month of the tax in the next few days, but Crosby says he’s already noticing the money lost.

“Six dollars a pack, six dollars a day, that’s forty-two dollars a week,” he said, “That’s a lot of money.”

He’s not the only one.

“It’s really putting a dent in everybody’s pocket I think so,” said Anthony Lewis.

Organizations like the American Cancer Society said they had high hopes the tax would encourage smokers to kick the habit. Bay County resident John Huber says he doubts it.

“Personally, I don’t think it’s going to make that much difference,” he said, “I think most people are going to continue to smoke and just pay the extra.”

But in the past month, people are already making adjustments. Many say they’re cutting down or switching to a less-expensive brand. Lewis found a more creative way to cut costs.

“I just only smoke half of one now at a time,” he said, pulling half a cigarette wrapped in a napkin out of his front shirt-pocket. He says he smoked the first half about an hour before.

Either way, smokers say the extra change isn’t going un-noticed.

“I’m thinking about quitting,” said Lewis, “because I just can’t afford it no more.”

State leaders predict the increase will bring an extra $900 million a year; they’ll spend it on Medicaid for smoking-related illnesses. The tax increase is the first in Florida in almost 20 years.


Copyright © 2009 Panhandleparade

Beginning today, ashes are all that will remain of tobacco products on prison property in Marion.
The Marion Correction Institution (MCI), which consists of the minimum-custody facility on N.C. 226 South and the close-custody facility on Old Glenwood Road, are among 26 prisons in North Carolina that will go completely tobacco free today. The units are joined by six administrative offices.
No inmates, employees, visitors or vendors will be allowed to possess tobacco products of any kind on the grounds or inside the buildings.
It’s the beginning of the Division of Prisons’ phase-out of tobacco products on its properties statewide. Units in other counties will eventually go tobacco free by the end of the year.
“What we’re trying to get people to see are the health benefits associated with this move,” said Randy Teague, assistant superintendent of programs at MCI. “A lot of the inmates aren’t happy about it, and, with the employees, it’s a mixed bag.”
The prison has been offering cessation classes for both inmates and employees. Health Department workers are teaching the employees, and prison instructors are providing the classes for inmates.
Prisoners will be able to purchase nicotine patches in the facility’s canteen but only after completing the cessation class, according to MCI Administrator Sid Harkleroad.
“We want to help everyone get through this as best we can,” Harkleroad stated. “We want everyone to be successful.”
He added that, a couple of years ago, prison officials banned smoking in the buildings, but doing away with it altogether is something that’s never been attempted.
“It’s going to be safer because the officers will not have to take the inmates outside to smoke,” said the administrator. “It’s also going to save the state and the taxpayers money on inmate health care costs.”
Before the latest ban, inmates were allowed tobacco breaks every two hours, beginning at 6:30 a.m. Employees were allowed to use tobacco products during their breaks. There were designated areas for workers and prisoners outside the buildings, and anyone caught smoking inside faced sanctions.
A bill in the state Legislature will make possessing, selling or providing inmates with tobacco products a misdemeanor. However, if passed, the law won’t go into effect until March 1, 2010.
Teague and Harkleroad estimated that two out of every three inmates at MCI use tobacco products.
They say the ban definitely presents the possibility of a black market for cigarettes.
“It’s going to be like any other contraband,” said Harkleroad. “Nicotine is just another drug, so I’m all for this.”
Sue Medford, MCI’s nurse supervisor, said the advantages of this move far outweigh the disadvantages.
According to Medford’s stats, there are 143 cardiac patients at MCI, 122 who suffer from pulmonary illnesses and 30 to 35 diabetics. Smoke and other tobacco products affect those people more than others.
Medford said it also affects patients who have tested positive for tuberculosis, those who have cardiac stints and others who have allergies and asthma.
The nurse stated that it’s going to cut down on many infections and other illnesses.
“We spend a lot on antibiotics, so this is going to save a lot of money,” she stated. “It’s a win-win situation.”
But one person who’s not so sure of that is Latif Irby, a 29-year-old inmate at the close-custody unit.
A smoker for 10 years, he quit in January after his father was diagnosed with lung cancer.
He’s not in a crunch to quit like some of his fellow prisoners, but he hears the complaints, and he also observes how it’s weighing on the officers.
“That’s how some (inmates) spend their time,” Irby stated. “They feel like they are giving up something, but they’re getting nothing in return. They feel like they are being forced to quit and they don’t like it.
“I can see the tension,” he added. “The inmates and (correctional officers) can relate to each other on this one.”
He attended a cessation class just to listen. Even though instructors offer remedies and techniques to halt tobacco use, the class alone is not going to help anyone quit, according to Irby.
“You have to want to quit or it’s going to be a constant fight within yourself,” he said. “I prayed a lot and learned how to change my habits.”
He offered a few helpful hints to those trying to quit smoking, chewing, dipping, etc.: eat sunflower seeds; avoid being around people using those products; do other things, like exercising or working out, to keep your mind busy; and be patient.
“It’s still difficult for me at times,” he admitted.
Teague added that there will be signs posted in the buildings and on the grounds today and beyond to remind people about the ban. The cessation classes, which have already been offered for a few weeks, will be an ongoing opportunity, he stated.


Copyright © 2009 Mcdowellnews

The Erie Niagara Tobacco Free Coalition is leading an effort to see that landlords create 100% smoke-free coalition for their tenants.

They are giving a $500 incentive to landlords who advertise smoke-free apartments.

ENTFC member Anthony Billoni says, “we feel there are lots of benefits to clean a non-smoker’s apartment. Value of the property retains – also, zero-percent risk of damage from a lit cigarette.”

He says interest is growing. They currently have 40 buildings in Erie and Niagara counties that have smoke-free policies. That’s close to 2,000 apartments.

Concerned over the increasing tendency among the youth to take to tobacco products, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), New Delhi has issued specific guidelines to its region heads to ensure “tobacco-free schools or institutes” and directed them to disseminate the same to all affiliated schools in their respective areas.

A circular containing all the details makes it mandatory for all heads to form tobacco control committees in educational institutes. The committee will comprise a teacher, school counsellor, two NSS/ NCC cadets, two parents’ representatives, local MLA, SHO, municipal councillor/ PRIs. The meetings will be chaired by the head of each school.

The committee will meet every quarter to monitor all tobacco control initiatives taken by the school/ institute, and accordingly send a report to the district administration.

Confirming this here today, D R Yadav, Regional

Head, CBSE, said that the circular has been sent to all CBSE-affiliated schools of the region. “The rationale behind the move is ‘aware them young’. Since the student community is vulnerable and prone to this menace, we have decided to start this campaign to nip the evil in the bud,” Yadav added.

The other guidelines contained in the circular include placing a ‘tobacco-free school’ board outside the main entrance of the school, ensuring no sale of tobacco products in the premises and within a radius of 100 yards of the school; and prohibition of smoking or chewing tobacco inside the premises by students, teachers or any other member of the staff and visitors.
Copyright © 2009

Officials of the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department say nearly everyone is complying with the tougher smoking ban put into effect a year ago.

The Kanawha-Charleston Health Department released a report Tuesday on the Clean Indoor Air Regulation that shows 95 percent compliance upon inspectors’ initial visits to bars, gambling facilities and other businesses.

The report said 3,174 inspections took place between July 2008 and June 30, 2009, and 177 violations were found.

Dr. Rahul Gupta, the director of the health department, said after the violations were noted and follow-up inspections took place, the inspectors found almost 100 percent of businesses had complied.

Asked if the ban was working, Gupta said, “It certainly is.”

He went on to say, “This is to protect the health not just of nonsmokers, but also those that are forced to work in facilities such as bars and other facilities that are nonsmokers. It is protecting their health.”

There were three types of inspections: routine, requested and those made in response to complaints. There were 2,724 routine inspections, four requested and 446 upon complaint.

The number of violations dropped each quarter. There were 56 violations in July through September 2008, for example, and 37 from April to June 2009.

When the smoking ban was initiated, some business owners opposed the ban and said they would continue to allow indoor smoking.

Gupta said those places were a focus point for inspections for the last three months, and inspectors did not find any repeat offenses.


Copyright © 2009 Dailymail

The City of Eagle was well on it’s way to becoming the first smoke-free city in Idaho, until last week, at least. Councilman Michael Huffaker put a stop to the city’s Clean Indoor Air Ordinance when he changed his vote on June 23.

The ordinance would have prohibited smoking at all businesses with more than five employees, including standalone bars, and would limit where smokers could light up outside, within city limits.

At the June 9 City Council meeting the ordinance was read for the first time and passed with a vote of 3 to 2. It seemed as if residents could soon breathe fresh air in Eagle. There were few objections to the ordinance except for a sprinkling of residents who were concerned about over-regulation.

Huffaker joined the skeptics last week when he changed his vote in opposition to the ordinance saying that possible detriments to the City of Eagle outweighed the benefits to the city. Huffaker cited a study that claims that if bar rats can’t smoke in their favorite bar in Eagle they will drive to neighboring cities to get their fix and then drive home drunk.

In a statement to the citizens of Eagle, Huffaker says, “I came to the Council meeting on June 23rd fully prepared to vote the same as I did on June 9th, but after listening to all the arguments again both for and against the ordinance, I felt myself being persuaded that although the intent and purpose of Ordinance 622 was good, that passing this particular ordinance was not the best way to accomplish that purpose … It was a very difficult decision to make but I felt I had to vote my conscience and for what I thought would be in the best interest of the city as a whole.”

Eagle City Council hasn’t quite stopped fighting for clean air just yet, though the ordinance has been tabled. They plan to send a resolution letter to the Idaho Legislature to encourage a statewide ban.


Copyright © 2009 Boiseweekly

As a society, we trust doctors to be more concerned with the pulse of their patients than the pulse of commerce. Yet the American Medical Association is using that trust to try to block a robust public insurance option as part of health reform.

In fact the A.M.A. now represents only 19 percent of practicing physicians (that’s my calculation, which the A.M.A. neither confirms nor contests). Its membership has declined in part because of its embarrassing historical record: the A.M.A. supported segregation, opposed President Harry Truman’s plans for national health insurance, backed tobacco, denounced Medicare and opposed President Bill Clinton’s health reform plan.

So I hope President Obama tunes out the A.M.A. and reaches out instead to somebody to whom he’s turned often for medical advice. That’s Dr. David Scheiner, a Chicago internist who was Mr. Obama’s doctor for more than two decades, until he moved into the White House this year.

“They’ve always been on the wrong side of things,” Dr. Scheiner told me, speaking of the A.M.A. “They may be protecting their interests, but they’re not protecting the interests of the American public.

“In the past, physicians have risked their lives to take care of patients. The patient’s health was the bottom line, not the checkbook. Today, it’s just immoral what’s going on. It’s abominable, all these people without health care.”

Dr. Scheiner, 70, favors the public insurance option and would love to go further and see Medicare for all. He greatly admires Mr. Obama but worries that his health reforms won’t go far enough.

Dr. J. James Rohack, the president of the A.M.A., insisted to me that his group is committed to making health insurance accessible for all Americans, and that its paramount concern is patient health.

“When you don’t have health insurance, you live sicker and you die younger,” he said. “And that’s not something we’re proud of as Americans.”

He added that the A.M.A. is not necessarily opposed to a public option, and I have the impression that it might accept a pallid one built on co-ops. Dr. Rohack wouldn’t repudiate his association’s letter to the Senate Finance Committee warning against a new public plan. That letter declared: “The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers.”

I don’t mind the A.M.A. lobbying on behalf of doctors in the many areas where physicians and patients have common interests. The association is dead right, for example, in calling for curbs on lawsuits, which raise medical costs for everyone.

An excellent study published in 2006 in The New England Journal of Medicine found that for every dollar paid in compensation as a result of lawsuits against doctors, 54 cents goes to legal and administrative costs.

That’s an absurd waste of money. Moreover, aggressive law leads to defensive medicine, in the form of extra medical tests that waste everybody’s money. Tort reform should be a part of health reform.

Yet when the A.M.A. uses its lobbying muscle to oppose major health reform — yet again! — that feels like a betrayal. Doctors work hard to keep us healthy when we’re in their offices, and that’s why they win our trust and admiration — yet the A.M.A.’s lobbying has sometimes undermined the health of the very patients whom the doctors have sworn to uphold.

I might expect the American Association of Used Car Dealers to focus exclusively on wallet-fattening, but we expect better of physicians.

In fairness, most physicians expect better as well, which is why the A.M.A. is on the decline.

“It’s what has led to the decline of the A.M.A. over the last half century,” said Dr. David Himmelstein, a Massachusetts physician who also teaches at Harvard Medical School. “At this point only one in five practicing doctors are in the A.M.A., and even among its members about half disagree with its policies.” To back that last point, Dr. Himmelstein pointed to surveys showing a surprising number of A.M.A. members who support a single-payer system.

For his part, Dr. Himmelstein co-founded Physicians for a National Health Program, which now has more than 16,000 members. The far larger American College of Physicians, which is composed of internists and is the second-largest organization of doctors, is also open to a single-payer system and a public insurance option. It also quite rightly calls for emphasizing primary care.

The American Medical Student Association has issued a sharp statement disagreeing with the A.M.A.

The student association declared that it “not only supports but insists upon a public health insurance option.”

Look, a public option is no panacea, and it won’t automatically set right the many shortcomings in our health system. But if that option is killed in gestation, then we’re back to Square 1 and there’s little hope of progress in solving the vast challenges confronting us.

So, President Obama, don’t listen to the A.M.A. on this issue. Instead, for starters, call your doctor!
Copyright © Nytimes

Adults should be banned from smoking in cars when children are passengers, the new head of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said.

In a BBC News website Scrubbing Up column, Professor Terence Stephenson, said children deserved protection.

“You can’t inflict this on your colleagues any more. Why should we treat our children’s health as a lower priority?” he said.

A Department of Health spokesman said it would review smoking laws next year.

Professor Stephenson, who recently took over as head of the college, said children should not have to breathe in their parents’ cigarette smoke.

“Why on earth would you light up in your car whilst your children are sitting happily in the back?

“On the assumption that you wouldn’t pass the packet round and invite the kids to light up, why make them breathe tobacco smoke at all?”

He said the Canadian province of New Brunswick, California, South Australia and Cyprus had already introduced such legislation successfully.

And Professor Stephenson said second-hand smoke had been linked to chest infections, asthma and ear problems in children.

‘Impractical suggestion’

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), backed a complete ban on smoking in vehicles.

Cars are small tin boxes, with not much air in them Deborah Arnott, ASH

“Cars are small tin boxes, with not much air in them.

“Smoking just one cigarette, even with the window open, creates a greater concentration of second-hand smoke than a whole evening’s smoking in a pub or a bar.

“That’s not just bad for children but for adults too, especially those who already have heart or lung diseases.”

And a spokeswoman for the road safety charity, Brake, said smoking while driving meant people were not concentrating on the road.

“All that can add up to not having proper control of your vehicle or dangerous driving.”

She said it might be useful to have a law banning smoking in the same way there was in force regarding using hand-held mobile phones.

But Neil Rafferty, Scottish spokesman for Forest, the pro-smokers’ rights group, said: “We don’t think that children should be exposed to smoke in a car but a ban would be a waste of police and court time.

“Would it be OK if you opened the sunroof or a window while smoking? It’s an impractical suggestion.

“People like those at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health should be more realistic about what is possible.”

A Department of Health spokesman said it would look at whether current anti-smoking laws needed to be extended.

He added: “We would always strongly recommend that people do not smoke in cars, especially those used to transport children.”
Copyright © 2009 Bbc

Raising taxes in California these days is extraordinarily difficult. In fact, in their effort to eliminate a $24-billion budget shortfall, the state’s politicians are discussing dismantling California’s main welfare program, eliminating the health insurance program for poor children and decimating education without any apparent debate on raising the income or sales tax.

One of the few state taxes that politicians have talked about raising is the tobacco tax. California’s is currently set at 87 cents a pack (and hasn’t been raised in a decade); this year, the Legislature will consider raising it to $2.97 a pack, which would bring the cost of a pack of cigarettes to more than $7.00. Sponsors of the bill estimate that the tax hike would raise about $2 billion.

What’s the chief argument for hiking the tobacco tax?

That it’s a good tax. Business taxes have negative consequences: They drive companies and jobs out of the region. High income taxes make the state a less desirable place to live. Sales taxes can stifle commerce.

But tobacco taxes are different. They raise revenues and simultaneously serve the public good by reducing smoking, at least in theory. That’s not insignificant in a state where about 13.3% of residents smoke, where there are more than 30,000 smoking-related deaths each year, and annual smoking-related costs are estimated at more than $15 billion.

Can raising taxes really change behavior?

Yes. The tobacco tax is based on one of the most fundamental rules of microeconomics — the law of demand — which says that all else being equal, the more you raise the price of a product, the more demand for it will drop. Conversely, if you reduce the price, more people will buy, use or, in this case, smoke the product.

Taxing tobacco in order to discourage its use is a pretty clever idea. Who came up with it? Milton Friedman? Paul Krugman?

Actually, it goes back a bit further.

When Columbus first brought tobacco back from the New World, rulers were not quite sure what to do. In the 16th century, Murad IV, the sultan of Turkey, decided that tobacco was offensive, and he tried to control it the old-fashioned way, by declaring its sale or use punishable by death.

That wasn’t a great success. In 1604, James I, king of England, tried another approach. Calling smoking “a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs, and in the black stinking fume thereof, nearest resembling the horrible Stygian smoke of the pit that is bottomless,” he imposed a 400% tariff on tobacco.

What does “Stygian” mean?

Dark, gloomy, hellish — like the river Styx. I had to look it up too.

But here’s the punch line: King James’ tariff had only minimal effects on consumption. Worse yet, according to some accounts, the enormous tax revenues that flowed in apparently converted James from an opponent of smoking to a supporter.

And today? Do many places have tobacco taxes?

Of course. Smoking is unpopular, and smokers are politically weak, so why not?

The United States instituted its first federal excise tax on tobacco in 1865 — 2 cents per 20 cigarettes — to help pay for the Civil War. In the 118 years that followed, it went up only slightly, to 8 cents a pack. But since 1983, the federal tax has been hiked repeatedly and now stands at $1.01 per pack.

Meanwhile, all 50 states have instituted tobacco taxes as well. They range from as low as 7 cents a pack in the tobacco-growing state of South Carolina to $2.75 a pack in New York, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. At 87 cents a pack, California’s tobacco tax is well below the national average of $1.20 a pack.

So this is a no-brainer, right? Raise the tax. Solve the budget crisis. End smoking. It’s that easy.

It’s not quite that simple.

For one thing, there’s a fundamental conflict in the tobacco tax: The more effective it is at discouraging smoking, the less revenue it brings in. Theoretically, if prices get pushed up high enough, so many people will stop smoking that revenues would decrease, eventually to zero if everyone were to quit.

Is it possible to predict what the effect of a price hike will be?

Surprisingly, it is.

What’s at work here is something economists call the “price elasticity of demand,” which measures how consumers respond to a change in price. Demand for a product, they say, is highly “elastic” if a slight change in price leads to a sharp change in consumption. If, by contrast, people are willing to continue paying for the product as the price goes up, the product is “inelastic.”

Demand for tobacco is relatively inelastic. Not because it is a necessary product but because it’s addictive. A 20-year, two-pack-a-day smoker is not all that likely to quit just because the price goes up by a dollar.

So people keep smoking no matter what?

No. Demand for tobacco is not perfectly inelastic, just relatively inelastic. Studies have shown that higher prices do persuade many smokers to stop. Especially poor people (who have more incentive to quit when prices go up) and younger smokers (who are both less addicted and more price-sensitive).

Now let’s get a little more technical. (If you don’t like numbers, you might want to skip the next few paragraphs.)

Economists have calculated, using data from real-world buying patterns, that in the developed world cigarettes have an elasticity of -.3 to -.4, according to Kenneth Warner, an economist who is dean of the School of Public Health at the University of Michigan. That means that if you raise the price of a pack by 10%, you will see a decline in the demand of 3% to 4%. (You calculate that by multiplying the elasticity by the price change.)

And what does that tell us?

Let’s work through a hypothetical. Imagine that a pack of cigarettes costs $6. Now assume that the tax on that is $2 out of the $6. If we were to double that tax to $4, the overall price would rise by $2 (from $6 to $8). That’s a 33% increase.

With me so far?

Cigarettes, you’ll recall, have a price elasticity of roughly -.4. So multiply the 33% price increase by -.4, and you learn that it will reduce the demand for cigarettes by 13.2%.

Wow. They can really tell that?

Obviously, it’s not exact. But the equation has proved, time after time, to be just about right. But we’re not done. We still want to know what the effect of that 13.2% drop will be on the revenue we were hoping to raise.

Let’s assume that we were initially selling 100,000 packs of cigarettes per week. We’re now going to lose 13.2% of those — which is great, because that means that fewer cigarettes are being smoked — bringing total sales down to 86,800 packs. That means that where we were initially bringing in $2 for each of 100,000 packs — or $200,000 — we’re now going to bring in 86,800 packs times $4, which comes to $347,200.

In other words, if Warner’s formula is accurate, not only will we reduce smoking by 13.2% in this hypothetical, we will also bring in $147,200 extra dollars in revenue.

Is there a price at which demand would fall so rapidly that there would no longer be any revenue increases?

Theoretically, yes. And yes, tobacco companies have often raised the specter of just that. But according to Warner, we’re nowhere near that point. He notes that cigarettes cost about $11 a pack in Ireland, yet every time the tobacco tax is raised there, it continues to bring in new revenue.

Surely there must be arguments against the tobacco tax.

Plenty of them. Some are made by tobacco companies, some by libertarians, some by economists.

One is that the government has no business using taxes to legislate personal choice. If people want to smoke and are fairly apprised of the risks, the government should not create financial impediments.

Another argument is that the government itself is now making a fortune from the cigarette business, and that’s immoral.

A third argument is that smokers are an unpopular minority with little political influence who are being asked to shoulder a disproportionate share of the burden of state budget problems.

This is particularly unfair, opponents say, because cigarette taxes are regressive — meaning that because all people are taxed at the same rate regardless of their incomes, the taxes take a heavier toll on lower-income people. In fact, the tax is doubly punitive because not only does a $2 tax take a bigger share of a poor person’s income than it takes of a rich person’s income, but poor people are much more likely to smoke. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 30% of adults living below the poverty line smoke, compared with only about 20% of those above the poverty line.

Is that a reasonable objection?

It’s certainly true that tobacco taxes are regressive. On the other hand, poor smokers are also more likely to benefit, because they are more likely to quit as a result of the tax.

What if people are too addicted to quit?

In most cases, they’ll just pay the higher cost. But opponents warn that tobacco taxes create incentives for black markets, especially if there are large price differentials in nearby areas. In some cases, people will cross state borders, or even national borders, to buy or smuggle cheaper cigarettes. As taxes go up, it makes economic sense to purchase cigarettes on Indian reservations, where the taxes often do not apply.

So what’s the bottom line?

There aren’t that many taxes that do good while raising money. The gas tax, which discourages driving, is another example. Don’t rule them out!
Copyright © 2009 Latimes

BEER and cigarettes go together like cows and hay in Wisconsin. North Carolina is the top United States tobacco-growing state.

Yet bars and restaurants in both states are poised to go smoke-free after their state legislatures passed bans on Wednesday. Both North Carolina Governor Beverly Perdue and Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle have said they support the measures.

Twenty-two US states and the District of Columbia have prohibited smoking in bars and restaurants since New York City passed its landmark ban in 2003. Four more states – Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota and Virginia – will do so by the end of the year. Florida, Idaho and Nevada ban smoking in restaurants.

The North Carolina House’s 62-56 vote marked yet another step away from the legacy of tobacco in a state that is still the nation’s top producer by sales. Last year, North Carolina farmers produced US$686 million worth of tobacco, nearly half the value of the entire US output.

“It is definitely a historic move,” said Betsy Vetter, a spokeswoman for the American Heart Association’s North Carolina chapter. “We think this will protect a large portion of the population from secondhand smoke, and that’s quite an accomplishment for public health.”

Their law would allow fines of up to US$50 for smokers who keep puffing after being asked by an establishment’s managers to stop, but the law can only be enforced by a local health director and not police. Hospitality owners or managers could be fined up to US$200 after being warned twice to enforce the smoking rules.

In Wisconsin, lawmakers voted for a bill marking a truce between the Wisconsin Tavern League and anti-smoking and health groups.

Republican Representative Leah Vukmir branded the ban “anti-smoking zealotry.”

“The only thing that’s compromised are individual rights and individual freedoms,” she said.

Copyright © 2009 Wtop

Old and new member-states locked in dispute over minimum taxation

Finland and the other old member-states of the European Union want to restrict personal imports of tobacco products from members that refuse to raise the minimum tax on tobacco.
The move would lead to the imposition of new limits on passenger imports just as the old ones are expiring.

In addition to Finland, the move is being supported by a number of other countries with high tobacco tax rates, such as Britain, Sweden, Austria, Germany and Ireland.
However, the proposal is problematic for many new EU members, which have only recently achieved or are getting close to the previous minimum duty level.
For instance, Latvia’s tax level recently reached the minimum level, and that of Estonia is also close.
The new member-states agreed to increasing the minimum duty rate only if they were given a long transitional period in implementing it.

Finland and other countries with a high duty payable on tobacco agreed to this only on the condition that they should be allowed to restrict passenger imports from the countries with a new transition period.
The EU ministers of finance negotiated on the matter in Brussels on Tuesday.
The old member states see the hike in the minimum tax as important, because they fear that their citizens will be bringing in more tobacco products from the Baltic region and Eastern Europe.

Finland is blocking growth in imports from Estonia by imposing a limit on passenger imports on tobacco products in packages which do not have warning labels in Finnish or Swedish.
On Thursday, Minister of Social Services Paula Risikko did not want to comment on either effort to reduce passenger imports.
“The matter is not finished”, Risikko said in Luxembourg.
Slightly under one fifth of all cigarettes smoked in Finland are bought abroad.
There is great variation in the price of cigarettes in the 27 EU countries.
A package of brand-name cigarettes costs one euro in Romania. The price is six times as high in Britain.

© Copyright: Hs

Health experts on Tuesday urged to take sincere steps to ensure 100% smoke-free environment to protect the health of non-smokers and reducing use of tobacco in the country.
They expressed these views while addressing the opening session of a three-day training workshop on “100% smoke-free environment” jointly organized by World Health Organization (WHO) and Tobacco Control Cell Ministry of Health.
Dr. Luminita Sanda from WHO Geneva said that there is a need to enhance capacity of national and sub national policy makers to protect people from exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
She asked to develop specific strategic action plan to improve ability of concerned stakeholders of tobacco control programmes to respond to opposition through skilled debate.
She said it is high time to enhance collaboration between the individuals and organizations to form plans and policies to control smoking besides effective implementation and enforcement of such policies. She apprised the participants about the effects of second hand smoking on human health and economic costs of medical complications caused due to tobacco use.
Director General Health Dr. Rashid Jooma said promulgation of prohibition of smoking and protection of non-smokers health ordinance 2002 and ratification of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) are real milestones.
He said no one has right to harm the health of others by using tobacco in open places, adding, steps are being taken in this regard to control this.

Country Representative WHO Dr. Khalif Bile Mohamad said the epidemic of tobacco has been one of the major causes of the non-communicable diseases including cancers and cardiovascular diseases in Pakistan.
He said 90% deaths from lungs disease and 25% from cardiovascular disease attributed to tobacco and added such diseases are affecting all groups of people particularly the youth.
He said use of sheesha smoking is on rise in Pakistan and young boys and girls are using it as fashion in open places and urged to take steps to control it.
He said sincere efforts are needed to protect public from the enchanting offers of tobacco industry causing harm to the health of country people.
He said Pakistan has made significant achievements towards tobacco control however, a lot more needs to be accomplished particularly the implementation of Ordinance and the FCTC, he added.
He expressed the hope that workshop will give skill and knowledge to making 100% smoke free environment and will help the participants to prepare effective advocacy plans.
DG Tobacco Control Cell, Ministry of Health, Shaheen Masud said the objective of the training workshop was to make an orientation of the participants on the concept of smoke-free environments.
She said during training the participants will explore ways and means for effective implementation of plans to provide 100% smoke-free environment to the people within enclosed places and public transport in the country.

Source: Nation

Each of the states in New England receives millions of dollars from cigarette companies’
tobacco lawsuit settlement payments and tobacco tax revenue. However, all of them are
spending too little on programs to prevent kids from starting to use tobacco and to help current
users quit.
It is well established that comprehensive statewide tobacco prevention programs consistent with
CDC guidelines prompt substantial reductions in smoking levels among both adults and kids.
This is achieved by both increasing the number of people who quit or cutback smoking and
reducing the number who start. In addition, studies have shown that the more states spend on
tobacco prevention, the lower the youth smoking rates and overall tobacco use.* As a result,
state tobacco prevention programs also reduce all the death, disease, disability and other harms
caused by smoking and other tobacco use – and also save money by reducing tobacco-related
health care costs.
National studies that look across states and control for as many of the relevant confounding
factors as possible consistently show powerful, positive effects of tobacco prevention and
cessation programs. For example:
· A recent study published in the American Journal of Public Health examined state
tobacco prevention and cessation funding levels from 1995 to 2003 and found that the
more states spent on these programs, the larger the declines they achieved in adult
smoking, even when controlling for other factors such as increased tobacco prices. The
researchers also calculated that if every state had funded their programs at the levels
recommended by the CDC during that period, there would have been between 2.2 million
and 7.1 million fewer smokers in the United States by 2003.7 The Campaign for Tobacco-

Free Kids estimates that such smoking declines would have saved between 700,000 and
2.2 million lives as well as between $20 billion and $67 billion in health care costs.
· The study described above adds to earlier research, using similar methods, which
demonstrated the same type of relationship between program spending and youth
smoking declines. The 2005 study concluded that if every state had spent the minimum
amount recommended by the CDC for tobacco prevention, youth smoking rates
nationally would have been between 3 percent and 14 percent lower during the study
period, from 1991 to 2000. Further, if every state funded tobacco prevention at CDC
minimum levels, states would prevent nearly two million kids alive today from becoming
smokers, save more than 600,000 of them from premature, smoking-caused deaths, and
save $23.4 billion in long-term, smoking-related health care costs.
· A peer-reviewed study published in August 2008 in the medical journal PLoS Medicine
found that California’s tobacco control program saved $86 billion in health care costs in
its first 15 years, compared to $1.8 billion the state spent on the program, for a return on
investment of nearly 50:1.9
In addition, every scientific authority that has studied the issue, including the National Academy
of Science’s Institute of Medicine (IOM), the President’s Cancer Panel, the National Cancer
Institute, the CDC, and the U.S. Surgeon General, has concluded that when properly funded,
implemented and sustained, these programs reduce smoking among both kids and adults.
· In 2007, the IOM and the President’s Cancer Panel each issued separate landmark
reports that reviewed available data, research, and other evidence and concluded that
comprehensive state tobacco control programs substantially reduce smoking and other
tobacco use among both adults and youth. Accordingly, both the IOM and the
President’s Cancer Panel recommended that every state adequately fund their tobacco
prevention programs at the CDC-recommended levels.

Serbia is among the European countries with the highest proportion of smokers. According to the ministry of health, about a third of Serbia’s 7-million-plus citizens smoke, nearly 38% of men and 30% of women.

Srmena Krstev, president of Serbia’s Commission for the Prevention of Smoking, told the Southeast European Times the age at which they begin is dropping constantly. “About 8% of teenagers, ages 13 to 15, periodically light up a cigarette. A third of them had their first cigarette at the age of ten,” she said.

In some countries, such as Greece and Turkey, nearly half the men smoke. However, the percentage of women who light up in those countries is much lower than in Serbia. “Serbia’s only ‘rival’ in the number of smokers among European countries is Bosnia and Herzegovina,” she said.

To address the growing health problems posed by smoking, the health ministry has proposed existing amendments to the law prohibiting smoking in enclosed spaces. The new law will be stricter and will cover all public spaces and workplaces, including cafes, restaurants and other service-related facilities.

Belgrade intends to harmonise the law with those in Europe. Implementation would occur in phases: first banning smoking in the workplace; next, establishing smokers’ areas in public facilities like restaurants; and finally, banning the practise altogether in public spaces. Implementing the law will not be easy, as resistance is expected. To avoid potential problems, “the document … will be very clear and its implementation strictly defined,” said Krstev.

Awareness of tobacco’s harmful effects is growing, particularly of the dangers of secondhand smoke. “If a third of the population smokes, we have to think about the other two thirds …. whose health may still be harmed”, she added.

The ministry of health plans a series of intensive campaigns to spread the message more systematically, said Krstev. A current campaign — “Cigarette smoke is a serial killer” — aims to scare smokers into worrying about their health. It is already showing results: from 2006 to 2008, 7% of men and 3% of women quit smoking.

The next campaign will appeal to smokers to “Cut out the cigarette smoke”. The goal is to point out smoking causes a great number of illnesses, some of which may be deadly.

Cigarettes are the most common cause of malignant illnesses, strokes and heart attacks. Smoking is particularly harmful during pregnancy, Krstev said, and can cause serious health problems to children long after infancy.

Source: Setimes

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have made decisions that provide for the allocation
of money from annual Master Settlement Agreement payments, tobacco excise tax revenues and/or general fund revenue to tobacco control and prevention programs in FY2008 (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008 for most states). The amounts range from $200,000 for tobacco prevention and control programs in Missouri, to $85.5 million in New York. Connecticut has appropriated no new state money for tobacco control and prevention programs this year. In terms of a percentage of the minimum level recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Maine ranks highest in its allocation of funds for tobacco prevention programs. Seventeen states—Alaska, Arkansas, California, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin—and the District of Columbia have set up arrangements to securitize all or part of their annual Master Settlement Agreement revenue.
{Securitization involves selling or pledging expected
tobacco settlement payments to a state-created corporate entity for the purpose of issuing bonds backed by settlement funds. The state then receives a smaller lump sum payment up front.}

Fire Safety Standards
Eight states—California, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon and Vermont—have laws in effect setting fire-safety standards for cigarettes to help prevent cigarette-caused fires. Fourteen additional states—Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Texas and Utah—have enacted legislation setting fire safety standards for cigarettes that had not taken effect yet as of January 1, 2008. The fire safety standards in all these states are identical to the standard in the first state to implement this type of legislation, New York.

Cigarettes:
All 50 states and the District of Columbia impose an excise tax on cigarettes. These taxes range from a high of $2.575 per pack in New Jersey to a low of $0.07 per pack in South Carolina. The national average for state cigarette excise taxes (as of January 1, 2008) is $1.112 per pack. Eight states—Connecticut, Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Maryland, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Wisconsin—increased their cigarette taxes in 2007, and Alaska and Hawaii implemented scheduled increases passed in previous years. Eight states increased their cigarette taxes, or implemented scheduled increases passed in previous years in 2006.
Other Tobacco Products:
Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have excise taxes on tobacco products other than cigarettes. Pennsylvania is the only state that does not impose a tax on other tobacco products. In most states, the excise tax is calculated as a percentage
of the wholesale sales price to retailers, the manufacturer’s invoice price or the price at which the tobacco entered the state. Fourteen states—Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont and Wisconsin—base some or all of their tobacco product excise taxes on the weight of the tobacco package.