ELM SPRINGS, Ark. — Smoking with young children in the car can be dangerous to their health, and in Arkansas it’s also against the law.

The law was passed in 2008, one reason why some smokers 40/29 talked with had no idea it even exists.

Fayetteville resident R.L. Jackson said, “I’ve never heard of the law before.”

Jackson has been a smoker for a long time, and was raised in a smoking environment himself.

“I grew up with a father smoking and I had no problems,” Jackson said.

Still, he was happy to hear about the law that bans drivers from smoking if children under the age of 6, or those that weigh less than 60 pounds are in the car.

Sgt. Kurt Eichel from the Elm Springs Police Department said, “If the officer walks up to the vehicle and sees a child that meets those requirements and you’re smoking, that’s illegal.”

Eichel said it’s a fairly rare citation, though he did issue one just the other day.

“The ticket we wrote the other day was one of the first ones we’ve seen in quite a while,” Eichel said.

Though not everyone 40/29 talked with thought police should be cracking down on smokers that hard.

Smoker Joseph Rodriguez said, “I do think it’s kind of unfair if someone is ticketed. I think a warning would be in order.”

Joseph Rodriguez says police should give smokers like him a little leeway when it comes to the law, just because it is still so new and relatively unknown.

This law is a secondary offense, meaning you can only be cited for it if you are pulled over for something else, like running a red light or speeding.

Drivers caught breaking the law face a $25 fine.
January 24, 2010

Originally set to be implemented on the 1st of January this year, the smoking ban is still being debated in the halls of power here in Spain with opposition parties failing to agree and Madrid setting its own rules.

Spain’s Health Minister Trinidad Jiménez has stated that she wants a new tobacco ban prohibiting smoking in all public places throughout Spain to go into effect as soon as the ruling Socialist Party can gather cross party support for its ratification by Congress.

TheUnited Left (IU) and Catalan Nationalist (CiU) approve the across-the-board ban but the major opposition Popular Party has not officially said whether it will support it. However, Madrid regional health chief Juan José Güemes, a member of thePP, said Monday he didn’t believe that the ban would work in the capital. “You never get good results from banning something,” Güemes said. “Restrictions mean curtailing freedoms and you have to be very careful about limiting individual guarantees.”

Deputy leader of the Madrid region, Ignacio González, also of the PP, said that his government would defend smokers’ rights “I believe that when it comes to the tobacco issue, one has to maintain some degree of respect — of course, at the same time looking at the legality of the legislation, but also ensuring that there is freedom to choose.”

It was in 2005, that the government introduced a tobacco law that has been poorly enforced. Under the regulations, public places more than 100-square-meters had to have a separate area for smokers. But a year later, a survey showed that more than half of the businesses around the country didn’t stick to the ban.

Madrid is different and the Madrid regional government issued its own decree, giving more freedom to smokers, such as allowing them to light up at certain areas at work and eliminating the 100-square-meter rule in the capital.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – A local group is pushing to pass laws that will end smoking in bars and dictate where people can smoke outside.

Shelley Courington is with a group called CHART. They’re about to start lobbying state lawmakers to ban smoking in bars. They’re also pushing to keep smokers from lighting up within 25 feet of a building.

“We have to have a healthy safe workforce in Tennessee. We have to make it safe for our workers, no matter what,” said Courington.

There’s obvious resistance to the idea, but CHART claims they have new data from the Institute of Medicine. It shows when you reduce exposure to second hand smoke, you directly reduce your heart attack and stroke rates.

The study also found in states where smoking bans are in effect, heart attack rates dropped 40 percent.

CHART said they are looking to new laws to keep people healthy, especially at a time when state funding for smoking cessation programs has dramatically dropped.

“The fact is we are dead last when it comes to how much we put aside for cessation funding,” said Courtington.

Tennessee used to spend $5 million on stop smoking programs, but because of budget cuts that number is down to $200,000.

The health department said since smoking was banned in Tennessee restaurants a few years ago, the number of smokers in Tennessee has dropped 1 percent.

State lawmakers will start debating the smoking ban issue when they head back into session in January.
By Scott Arnold

TAHLEQUAH — In an effort to keep area residents healthy, Thursday, has been designated as Great American Smoke-out Day in the Cherokee Nation. In honor of the event, the tribe is offering classes and incentives to help smokers and tobacco users stop for at least one day.

Cherokee Nation Healthy Nation will be celebrating the day by offering free cessation kits and prizes to all who commit to stop smoking and using tobacco for at least one day. Resources and educational materials on how to stay smoke and tobacco free and sign ups for free cessation classes will be available between 8 a.m. and 11 a.m. Thursday at Cherokee Nation W.W. Hastings Hospital, Cherokee Casino Tahlequah, Cherokee Casino Fort Gibson, Tahlequah City Hospital, NEO Health in Hulbert and at the Northeastern State University Center in Tahlequah.

Classes and incentives are free and available to anyone. You do not have to be a Cherokee Nation citizen or Native American to attend.

Information: Lu McCraw, 453-5260 or Carol Choate, 931-8161.

ALBANY, GA – Prisoners and workers at the Department of Corrections are about to deal with a big change.

The Department is banning tobacco use at its 37 facilities. In 1995, they banned the use inside buildings and that led to a riot by state prisoners in Lee County. This time they hope phasing it out gradually will ease inmates into the transition.

The state prison system is following the lead of facilities like the Dougherty County Jail that has been tobacco free for 15 years and Lee County Jail that went tobacco free nine months ago. Prison leaders say it’s counter productive for inmates to give up smoking in jail only to start lighting up again in a state facility.

By the end of 2010 Georgia’s state prisons will be tobacco free. The Georgia Department of Corrections says it’s a move that will improve the health of inmates and save tax money by cutting health care costs.

“With tobacco use contributing greatly to health issues and health problems, that’s something that we are always cognizant of when it come to the budget, is making sure we contain our health costs this is one of the ways to help do that as well,” said Michael Nail, Deputy Director of the Corrections Division.

The Dougherty County Jail banned tobacco products in 1995 when the new jail opened, it’s meant a cleaner facility, but created a new problem.

“It has become the largest items of contraband in the jail,” said Col. Doug McGinley, the Dougherty County Jail Administrator.

Family and friends have gone as far to leave tobacco outside the guard line for work details. The Department of Corrections says while tobacco may be the new contraband it may cut back on other dangerous substances.

“What is increased in contraband is tobacco, ironically the possession of drugs as contraband actually goes down, so in one sense of it while you still have some contraband by way of tobacco you’re minimizing the drug contraband,” said Nail.

Dougherty Jail Officials say it’s been a while since they’ve had a complaint.

“Surprisingly it’s been 10 or 12 years since we’ve had a complaint from the inmates that this is a tobacco free facility,” said McGinley.

The state’s ban of the substance will also mean a loss in the revenue, right now they can sell cigarettes in the commissary, but that will end when the ban takes affect.

Over the next two weeks, inmates will get information from the Department of Corrections explaining how the tobacco ban will take place.

The ban will start January first when tobacco use will be banned at two diagnostic facilities where inmates are evaluated before being transferred into the state system.

The Augusta State Medical Prison will be next followed by other state facilities.

By Jennifer Emert, Nov 16, 2009 Walb

BECKLEY — A variety of organizations are coming together to “Follow the Signs.”

The Southern Coalfields African American Tobacco Prevention Network organized a training program to raise awareness about how tobacco affects the African American community. Groups came together Monday at Tamarack for an informational cessation session.

“The tobacco industry spends millions of dollars, first to target African Americans. They spend $35 million per day on marketing cigarettes in the United State. And a lot of that money is placed into the black community,” West Region Director LaTanisha Wright said.

According to the National African American Tobacco Network, each year 47,000 blacks die from tobacco-related illnesses.

Additionally, the group says more African Americans die from lung cancer than any other race in the United States.

By Kate Krivanek, West Virginia Media.

ASH praised politicians for voting in favour of ending the display of tobacco and banning the sale of tobacco from vending machines, legislation that will put tobacco out of sight and out of reach.

Chief Executive of ASH Deborah Arnott said:

“This is the most significant step forward in public health since smokefree legislation. Putting tobacco out of sight will protect our children from the insidious marketing of the tobacco industry, whose brightly lit displays currently hold pride of place in every corner shop, garage and supermarket in the land.

Stopping tobacco sales from vending machines has made a strong Bill even stronger. We wouldn’t tolerate other age restricted products such as alcohol or knives being sold in this way. This prohibition means that a lethal and addictive product will no longer be easily accessible to children.”

In 2003 many other forms of advertising were banned because of their influence on children. Since then the industry has placed ever more emphasis on point of sale displays, which are now bigger, brighter and more eye catching than ever before. They are filled with ever increasing numbers of variants on major brands giving maximum exposure to household names such as ‘Silk Cut’ and ‘Marlboro’.

Ms Arnott added:

“The tobacco industry has done everything it can to frighten small shops into thinking this will be the end for their business. This is simply not true. There will be a consultation on the regulations which will give ample time for retailers and the public health community to respond with any concerns they may have about the detail.”

Notes

The complete ban on sales of tobacco from vending machines is a new clause which will now have to go back to the House of Lords to be voted on. The Point of Sale clauses have now been passed by both Houses.

The Government has issued a consultation on the regulations today which provides details of how the new law will work in England. In Wales and Northern Ireland Ministers will have the powers to develop their own regulations and in Scotland similar legislation is currently being debated to end displays. In England larger shops will have to comply by 2011 while smaller shops will have until 2013. The full consultation is available on the DH website.

Source
ASH

GENEVA — A ban on smoking in public places will return to Switzerland’s Geneva canton after being approved in a referendum Sunday, a year after a court ended a first bid to prohibit lighting up.

Geneva’s residents voted 81.77 percent in favour of bringing back the ban, with only 18.3 percent voting against.

A canton-wide smoking ban in public places was originally introduced on July 1, 2008, after the state government used a first referendum as grounds for pushing through the move.

But the Federal Tribunal ruled three months later that the ban should not have been passed by the canton’s lawmakers before the state’s government enacted legislation.

The law therefore had no legal basis, the tribunal found.

Geneva’s smokers were allowed to light up again at the end of September last year in bars and restaurants following the ruling.

A year on, the smoking ban will once again come into force after the canton’s lawmakers passed legislation and had it overwhelmingly approved in Sunday’s referendum.

The new rules allow bar, hotel and restaurant owners to fit out special smoking rooms in their establishments, which the original ban did not.

Supporters of the ban are opposed to this compromise, however, and said Sunday they would appeal to the Federal Tribunal.

Although the health reform bill proposed by Senator Max Baucus talks about “shared responsibility,” it imposes no responsibility whatsoever on the small minority of Americans whose choice to smoke costs almost $200 billion a year in totally unnecessary costs which must now be borne by the nonsmoking majority, charges Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), which has proposed a plan featured on MSNBC to impose a surcharge on smokers to help fund health care reform.

“Instead of a 35% tax on comprehensive health insurance plans — including those protecting many current and retired union members — Senators should impose a surcharge or user fee of those whose deliberate choice to continue smoking increases the taxes as well as the health insurance premiums of all nonsmokers. It could raise as much money, be fairer, and, rather than deterring measures to keep people healthy, would keep people much healthier by slashing the incidence of expensive smoking-caused diseases now imperiling our health care system,” says public interest law professor John Banzhaf, Executive Director of ASH.

The Baucus bill proposes to raise $215 billion over 10 years by taxing comprehensive health insurance plans. But requiring smokers to pay a surcharge of as little as $40/month on their health insurance — similar to the surcharge they have long paid for their life insurance — would raise more money.
Also, if the surcharge encouraged only 15% of current smokers to quit, these savings would exceed the $215 billion the Baucus bill would impose on the well insured. After all, smokers now spend over $90 billion a year in tobacco products, so they should be able to afford an additional $21.5 billion if they refuse to quit.

To fund reform, Baucus would also restrict the rate of growth of certain Medicare spending. It would reduce payments to insurance companies in Medicare Advantage programs relied upon by millions of senior citizens. It would also restrict Medicare reimbursements for services like home health care and medical imaging.

“Isn’t it fairer to target smokers who cost us all almost $200 billion a year than to seek to balance health care reform on the backs of innocent senior citizens who depend on Medicare Advantage and services like home health care? Why slash life-saving medical imaging like X-rays, MRIs, etc. and not the major cause of most easily preventable diseases,” asks Banzhaf.

Many studies show that the percentage of smokers is highest among those with the lowest incomes — exactly the same population where so many of the currently uninsured are now found. Thus, any health reform plan which guarantees to pay their treatment costs is likely to cost even more than estimated because of the extraordinarily high rates of heart attacks, stroke, lung- and other cancers, respiratory diseases etc. caused by their much higher rate of smoking.

“It is unfair to let the small percentage of adults who chose to smoke (about 19%, of which only about 13% smoke daily) impose on all of us totally unnecessary costs medical and other costs far in excess of that required to completely fund health care reform,” argues Banzhaf, while taxing those who aren’t contributing to these costs like people with comprehensive health care plans, and restricting Medicare Advantage programs, life-saving medical imaging, etc.

Instead, it is far fairer and much more effective to begin to require smokers to pay their fair share of those costs; a move which could raise most of the money necessary to fund health care reform which slashing the costs of medical care for everyone. “It’s a win, win, win proposal,” says Banzhaf.


PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III
Professor of Public Interest Law at GWU, and
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH)
America’s First Antismoking Organization
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006, USA
(202) 659-4310 // http://ash.org

The FDA has finally acknowledged near 300 reports of suicide and attempted suicide that are linked to the smoking cessation drug Chantix. The FDA announcement is 2 years overdue. Chantix is a smoking cessation prescription medication marketed by Pfizer. Pfizer clearly states on their website “Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressed mood, suicidal thoughts or actions while using CHANTIX to help them quit smoking. Some people had these symptoms when they began taking CHANTIX, and others developed them after several weeks of treatment or after stopping CHANTIX.”
“unlike Chantix – for which there were many immediate post-marketing reports of potential adverse effects — e-cigarettes have been on the market for more than three years and there have yet to be any severe adverse effects reported.”

Quitting smoking is difficult enough without the addition of mind altering drugs. There are alternatives to help you either quit smoking, or smoke a healthier alternative. The electronic cigarette could be your answer.

The electronic cigarette is considered a ‘harm reduction alternative’. The FDA has yet to prove electronic cigarettes as harmful, however they are using a fear campaign to sway public opinion of these potentially lifesaving devices. An electronic cigarettes, also known as an e-cigarette, is tobacco and tar free. An e-cigarette contains only 20 ingredients, none of which are carcinogenic. Regular cigarettes contain 4,000 chemicals, many of which have been proven to be toxic. The smoker draws on an e-cigarette, just like a regular cigarette. Inside is pure nicotine held in a suspension of food safe additives. The smoker inhales and blows out what looks like smoke, but is water vapor. The smoker controls how much or how little nicotine he or she inhales by buying various strengths of e-cigarette cartridges.

Gina King of www.e-cigarettedirect.com states that “sales have been increasing every month. Customers rave that the electronic cigarette has given them back their life, their sense of taste and their control. They don’t want mind-altering drugs. They want electronic cigarettes to stay legal!”

A growing number of tobacco scientists are questioning the FDA’s motives to try and ban electronic cigarettes. Dr. Michael Siegel notes that “unlike Chantix – for which there were many immediate post-marketing reports of potential adverse effects — e-cigarettes have been on the market for more than three years and there have yet to be any severe adverse effects reported.”

Dr. Siegel also noted “We know that there is no evidence that anyone is dying from using electronic cigarettes, but we’re going to take them off the market, even though they are helping people to quit smoking. That just doesn’t make any sense,” Dr. Siegel said.
As the FDA review of the problems with Chantix has continued, the FDA states that it appears increasingly likely that there is an association between Chantix and serious neuropsychiatric symptoms.

So, if you want to curb your smoking habit, you have a choice: Mind-altering drugs or a safe alternative: The electronic cigarette.

Gina King is an electronic cigarette expert. She sees the importance these products have to allow smokers to have a healthier option and is are currently working diligently to make electronic cigarettes a mainstream smoking tool.

Pro-tobacco groups spent a record $1.25 million dollars lobbying in the first half of 2009, according to David Ahrens, UW Carbone Cancer Center researcher. Ahrens says this was the first time the “million dollar threshold” has been crossed. The money was used to fight the statewide public smoking ban and cigarette tax proposals, both of which became law, but he says pro-tobacco groups did score a victory.

“At the end of the session, the funding for the tobacco control programs was slashed by 55 percent,” says Ahrens.

These control programs help maintain the state’s free tobacco quit line, as well as tobacco prevention for youth and adults.

Drawing from Government Accountability Board records, Ahrens says pro-tobacco lobbyists outspent the total of opposing groups like Smoke Free Wisconsin and the American Cancer Society by 7-to-1.

Copyright © 2009 Wrn

Muslims are being encouraged to quit smoking during Ramadan.

NHS Manchester’s Stop Smoking Service is offering support for people who want to quit smoking or using tobacco products and enjoy a smokefree Ramadan, which starts on Saturday (22 August).

During the 30 days of Ramadan, Aurangzaib Amirat, a specialist stop smoking advisor, will be visiting the following Mosques to provide one-to-one support for anyone ready to quit:

* Dar-us-Salam Mosque, 47 Slade Lane, Longsight M13 0QJ
* Victoria Park Mosque, 20 Upper Park Road, Victoria Park, M14 5RU
* Al Quba & Shah Poran Mosque, 109-115 Beresford Road, Longsight, M13 0TA
* Makki Mosque, 125 Beresford Rd, Longsight, M13 0TA
* Madina Mosque, 2 Barlow Road, Levenshulme, M19 3DJ
* Al Furqan Mosque, 42 Great Southern Street, Rusholme, M14 4EZ

Quitting smoking or using tobacco products isn’t always easy, but support from an NHS specialist advisor can help make the fresh start to a smokefree life.

Bashir Ahmed is one of many people who received support from an advisor who visited a mosque in Manchester during Ramadan 2008.

After smoking for over 25 years, Bashir has gone smokefree.

He had tried to quit during Ramadan when he received information from Aurangzaib, but was not quite ready. Instead he kicked the habit when he was admitted into hospital last December.

Bashir said: “I was not allowed to smoke for three days while I was in hospital. On the fourth day I thought; if I managed not to smoke for three days then maybe I’ll try four, then I tried 5 days and I’ve not smoked since.

“I used to smoke a lot of cigarettes when I broke my fast each day, so I would not have any cravings while I was fasting. But now my whole life has changed since I’ve quit – my chest is clearer, I can concentrate and I don’t get terrible headaches. I am really looking forward to a smokefree Ramandan this year.

“I want to help people realise that smoking is bad for their health. Ramadan is a really good time to take advantage of the support offered to stop smoking.”

Smoking tobacco is a cause of many diseases, including cancers, heart disease, respiratory diseases . Smokeless tobacco is a cause of cancer of the mouth, lips, tongue and betel nut is also associated with serious pre-cancerous condition. When tobacco is chewed by pregnant women it can reduce the growth of their unborn babies.

People from Parkistani, Bangladeshi and Indian Backgrounds have around a 50 per cent higher risk of heart disease than the UK population as a whole.

Abbie Paton, Manchester Stop Smoking Service Tobacco Lead said: “Ramadan provides an opportunity to receive support to stop smoking and enjoy a healthy smokefree Ramadan.”

For dates and times of the mosque visit, or for help and advice to stop smoking or chewing tobacco call Manchester Stop Smoking Service on 0161 205 5998.

Copyright © August 19, 2009 Theasiannews

The American cancer society has filed paperwork to join the legal fight over a smoking ban approved by the legislature.

The American Cancer Society told KSFY this afternoon that they are not asking to do anything different than just be a part of the process.

Jennifer Stalley, the American Cancer Societies Director of Government Relations said this afternoon that now that they’ve filed the necessary paperwork, they’ll just be waiting for Judge Barnett’s decision. Stalley said, “We’ll await the judge’s ruling and if we’re allowed to intervene. Certainly, our intention would be to make sure the supporters of the smoke free law are fully represented to the judicial part of this process.”

Now in their request, it says that the smoking ban is necessary to preserve public health, can’t be referred, and should be allowed to take effect.

As far as the smoking ban petition organizers, Larry Mann this afternoon said that he is not surprised by the American Cancer Societies decision to request to intervene, “these are some pretty delicate legal determinations that need to be made. I think there’s reason to argue that they don’t rise to the level of being able to intervene and we’ll just have to see what the judge’s determination is.”

The judge will begin hearing the lawsuit on August 24th.


Copyright © 2009 Ksfy

BAGHDAD – Iraq’s cabinet approved a bill on Thursday to ban smoking in public places, but after years of bombings and kidnappings, chain-smoking Iraqis said they had more important things to worry about.

While violence has fallen sharply in Iraq in the last 18 months, insurgents still conduct major attacks on civilians. And with unemployment at nearly 20 percent, many Iraqis while away the day in cafes in a fog of fruity, aromatic waterpipe smoke.

Government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the aim of the law was to reduce the number of smokers and to protect the public from smoke — no small feat in a country where even hospital corridors are littered with cigarette butts.

“The government should worry about car bombs before worrying about the effects of smoking. It has to stop terrorism,” said Ali Marham, a 35-year-old computer worker, smoking a waterpipe at a cafe in Baghdad’s central Karrada district.

If ratified by parliament, the ban would include a prohibition on smoking in ministry buildings, airports, company buildings, theatres, cinemas and schools, Dabbagh said in a statement. “There will be designated areas for smoking.”

It was not clear if the ban would apply to waterpipes.

Other Iraqis, roasting in the searing summer heat, said they would rather the government concentrate on improving the dilapidated electricity sector, which only supplies a few hours of power a day in many parts of the country.

“There are more important issues than this law, like fixing electricity, water shortages and reducing traffic,” said Atheer Abdul-Wahab, a cafe worker who smokes 30 cigarettes a day. “I’m ready to give up smoking if the state provides a job for me.”

Dabbagh said the law would ban smoking for minors, and set fines of up to 5 million dinars ($4,274) for any media that advertise cigarettes.

But the cheapness of cigarettes in Iraq — a pack can cost as little as 25 cents — makes smoking a tempting vice.

“One of the reasons for smoking is the difficult situation of living in the country. The state has to improve the psychology of the citizen by providing more places of entertainment. The timing of this law is not suitable,” said Ali al-Tayeb, 30, owner of Karrada’s Shisha (Waterpipe) Cafe.

Still some Iraqis, like cafe worker Haidar Imad, were in favor and said the law might just work. “I encourage the draft law, we can create miracles from the smallest things.”


Copyright © 2009 Reuters

CHAPEL HILL — Do you want to see a beautiful sight? Take a ride through Eastern North Carolina on country roads, avoiding the interstate highways. You’ll see the most beautiful crops of tobacco, thousands of acres, likely double or triple the number of acres that this state has ever grown.

The government allotment program has been discontinued. Farmers now contract with the tobacco companies to grow the tobacco, and there is no limit on the acres they can grow. The great soil in Eastern North Carolina, plus the right amount of rain, fertilizer and sunshine, is making this a banner year. The owners of the land, the farmers that may own or just rent the land, and the tobacco companies are having a great year in terms of income.

You may even see immigrants working in the fields. A trip now will reward you with the sight of the large, full green and golden leaves before they are harvested, leaving only the naked stalks. Take a ride now while you can see the tobacco in its full bloom and beauty. You will also see the occasional cotton, corn, soybean or vegetable field.
tobacco.jpg poppy.jpg

CLICK FOR MORE PHOTOS

* tobacco.jpg
* poppy.jpg

More Columns

* The skeptics are all wet
* What ‘right’ to health care?
* A supremely flawed process
* Off to the races for Wake schools
* Bumper crops of addiction
* We need to choose free-choice health care

This tobacco is being processed in the United States or sent overseas for processing and then sold for smokes in Russia, in India and in Middle Eastern, Asian and European countries. We now have rigid laws in the U.S. regarding tobacco use due to its addicting properties, the adverse health effects that contribute to cancer, ill health, early death, hospital and medical costs. We don’t worry about the illnesses, deaths and medical illness in those other countries. Many have no restrictions on the advertising or use of tobacco products. If you travel to those countries, it appears that the majority of people are smoking.

In the meantime, farmers in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and in Colombia, Mexico and other Central and South American countries, are admiring their poppy fields and marijuana fields. They harvest and ship their products to the United States. In some cases “bad guys” reportedly take much of the profit and continue their wars against the United States, resulting in death and injury to our servicemen.

Those countries, farmers and middlemen don’t worry about the drug wars, the crimes their drugs promote or the illnesses and deaths these addicting drugs produce in the United States.

There is an old saying: Turnabout is fair play.

GALVESTON — The Galveston City Council adopted a comprehensive smoking ban Thursday, forbidding people from lighting up in bars, restaurants, private clubs and tobacco stores.

Council members Karen Mahoney, Elizabeth Beeton and Tarris Woods joined Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas, who championed the ban, in voting for the ordinance. Council members Danny Weber and Susan Fennewald voted against it. Councilwoman Linda Colbert was absent.

The ban will take effect Jan. 1.

The adopted ordinance is more restrictive than the regulations the council previously discussed, a compromise that guaranteed its passage.

Mahoney, Beeton and Thomas agreed to approve the ban with an exception for tobacco stores, but Woods said he could only give his support if the measure was universally applied.

To make sure the ban passed, the other three agreed.

Several prominent restaurateurs and business groups who opposed a similar smoking ban proposed in 2006 said they would support it this time as long as it put all businesses on a level playing field. They lobbied against giving an exception to private clubs, saying it would provide a loophole for unfair competition from anyone who opted to run what was really a for-profit business as a members-only establishment.

Although the proposed ban received little attention when it was discussed at previous meetings, the council chambers were packed Thursday with people anxious to hear the outcome of the debate.

The 16 people who spoke in favor of the ban cited the health risks of second hand smoke and beneficial effect on bars and restaurants. The 13 people who spoke against the ban accused the city of unnecessary interference and claimed the regulations would put small bars out of business. They both claimed data from other cities with similar bans to back up their positions.

Completely banning smoking while the city was trying to recover from Hurricane Ike was bad timing, Edward Stanza, who owns Club Groove in the 2400 block of Market Street, said.

“Give us a year or two years to recoup our losses,” he said. “It’s not time to enforce a law that we can’t survive with. If I lose my business, I’ll lose my home.”

But no business should have a right to put its employees at risk for getting cancer, Lisa Velasquez, a former smoker and chair of the island’s Relay for Life event, said.

“I never wanted my secondhand smoking to kill someone else,” she said. “That’s why I support the ban.”

Both Weber and Fennewald said they thought the city was overstepping its bounds and unnecessarily harassing businesses.

Thomas and Mahoney said it was time to acknowledge second hand smoke as a public health problem.


Copyright © 2009 Galvnews

Smokers who suffer a heart attack may have better chance of quitting smoking if they get intensive consultation starting in the hospital, new research suggested.
In a trial of smokers who were hospitalized for a heart attack, those who were by accident assigned to an intensive smoking-cessation program which were more likely to be abstinent one year later.
Compared with patients who received a special nurse’s advice and some standard brochures while in the hospital, those in the intensive group were twice as likely to be tobacco-free after 1 year.
This smoking-cessation program began while patients were still in the hospital, with bedside counseling and advice. Patients then received take-home materials and phone-based counseling for 2 months after release from hospital.
“By significantly increasing abstinence among cardiac patients, inpatient programs for smoking cessation have the potential to produce considerable reductions in cardiac events and hospital costs,” write the investigators, led by Dr. Patricia M. Smith of the Northern Ontario School of Medicine.
Researchers have long called for hospitals to plainly offer heart patients smoking-cessation counseling. Nevertheless, such programs have not yet been widely adopted.
Randomly investigators assigned 276 heart patients at one hospital for to receive either intensive smoking-cessation counseling or “minimal” advice.
At the end of the investigation, after 12 months, 54 percent of patients in the intensive group were tobacco-free, based on reports from the patient and a family member or friend. That compared with 35 percent in the group that did not receive the intervention.
Patients in the intensive group were also twice as likely to be permanently abstinent during the 1-year follow-up.
“The rates of confirmed long-term abstinence observed in this trial are among the highest rates reported in cardiac populations and are among the highest reported absolute differences between minimal and intensive interventions,” write investigators.
They added that hospital counseling is more likely to help heart patients than the typical approach of offering intensive counseling only when patients have quit and then relapsed.
According to European studies, the five-year survival rate for post-transplant smokers is 37%, compared to 80% for nonsmoking recipients. Smokers can develop inoperable lung cancers within five years after a transplant, thus resulting in a shorter survival rate. There is an alarming incidence of head and neck cancers in transplant recipients who resume smoking.
Overall, there is a 90% relapse rate in the general population but, the more times a smoker tries to quit, the greater the chance of success with each new try.

More than a decade after Harvard researchers first revealed that life and health insurance companies were major investors in tobacco stocks – prompting calls upon them to divest – the insurance industry has yet to kick the habit, they say.

A new article on insurance company holdings, published in today’s New England Journal of Medicine, shows that U.S., Canadian and U.K.-based insurance firms hold at least $4.4 billion of investments in companies whose subsidiaries manufacture cigarettes, cigars, chewing tobacco and related products.

Tobacco products currently contribute to the deaths of 5.4 million people worldwide annually, according to the World Health Organization. Tobacco use is a major risk factor for stroke, heart attack, lung disease and cancer.

“Despite calls upon the insurance industry to get out of the tobacco business by physicians and others, insurers continue to put their profits above people’s health,” said Dr. J. Wesley Boyd, the lead author of the article. “It’s clear their top priority is making money, not safeguarding people’s well-being.”

To illustrate their point, Boyd and his colleagues point to Newark, N.J.-based Prudential Financial Inc., which sells life insurance and long-term disability coverage. With total tobacco holdings of $264.3 million, Prudential Financial is a major investor in three tobacco firms, including Reynolds American, whose subsidiary R.J. Reynolds manufactures Camel and Pall Mall cigarettes, and Philip Morris, maker of the popular Marlboro brand.

Sun Life Financial Inc., based in Toronto, sells life, health, disability and long-term care insurance. It also owns slightly over $1 billion in stock in two tobacco companies, including $890 million in Philip Morris.

London-based Prudential Plc, which offers health, disability, and long-term care insurance, has holdings of $1.38 billion in two tobacco companies, including British American Tobacco, which markets Kent and Lucky Strike cigarettes.

The researchers also itemize the substantial tobacco holdings of Northwestern Mutual of Milwaukee and Massachusetts Mutual Life of Springfield, Mass., along with those of Standard Life Plc, a health and life insurer based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Boyd and his co-authors, Drs. David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler at the Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, culled their data from Osiris, a proprietary database of industrial, banking and insurance companies. Osiris draws upon Securities and Exchange Commission filings and news reports from providers like Dow Jones and Reuters.

“Although investing in tobacco while selling life or health insurance may seem self-defeating,” the authors write, “insurance firms have figured out ways to profit from both. Insurers exclude smokers from coverage or, more commonly, charge them higher premiums. Insurers profit – and smokers lose – twice over.”

The same researchers, all of whom are affiliated with Physicians for a National Health Program, first published data about the “tobacco-insurance company connection” in 1995 in the medical journal Lancet. They say that because private, for-profit insurers have repeatedly put their own financial gain over the public’s health, readers in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom should be wary about insurance firms’ participation in care.

They add, “These data raise a red flag about the prospects of opening up vast new markets for private insurers at public expense, as has happened in our state of Massachusetts, whose recent health care reform is often cited as a model for national reform.”
Copyright © 2009 Insurancenewsnet

After several bans on smoking in public places in most Chinese cities went up in smoke, Shanghai and Luoyang have expressed a desire to educate parents of the dangers of puffing away in front of their kids.

Shanghai and Luoyang are among six cities, including Wuxi (Jiangsu), Changsha (Hubei), Ningbo (Zhejiang) and Tangshan (Hebei), which joined Qingdao in a campaign called “Tobacco Free Cities” launched in the coastal capital of Shandong province yesterday.

The five-year program, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, will provide the cities with funds to implement anti-smoking policies. Most of the seven cities that have joined the campaign already have smoking bans in place, but “hope to tighten controls and raise awareness” about the harmful effects of smoking.

Li Aihong, an official with the Luoyang disease prevention and control center, said her research found that 80 percent of people in her city are “forced to inhale second-hand smoke in their own homes”.

“As most families now have only one child, we want to start with newlyweds, pregnant women and new mothers to urge their husbands not to light up at home for the sake of the baby,” she said.

As the world’s largest cigarette market, with annual sales of 2 trillion cigarettes, China has more than 350 million smokers, about a third of the world’s smokers.

Shanghai hopes to use the program to achieve its target of becoming a “tobacco free” city ahead of the World Expo, due to kick off in May next year.

Shen Xiaoming, vice mayor of the metropolis, said they expect the program to help “create a tobacco-free environment for the people” of Shanghai.

“Later this year, Shanghai will promulgate a local tobacco-control regulation to strengthen its anti-smoking efforts,” he said.

Between June and September, experts from the US-based Emory University and ThinkTank Research Center for Health Development in Beijing will help the seven cities appraise their current tobacco control measures, and help them chalk out targets for the future.

Each city will have access to $100,000 a year, provided by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

At the end of next June, the performance of each city will be evaluated to determine if the program must continue.

“What is the most important (for the success of the program) is the political will,” said Jeffrey P Koplan, director of the Emory Global Health Institute.

The seven cities have been picked from a pool of 34 cities and the program is expected to expand to more regions next year, said Wang Ke’an, director of ThinkTank Research Center for Health Development.
Copyright © 2009 Chinadaily

MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Let me take 10 seconds to get organized. Let me quickly go through a week ahead for your planning.

The President will spend the weekend in Washington and has no scheduled public events. On Monday the President will sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in the Rose Garden. On Tuesday the President will meet with the President of Chile at the White House. On Wednesday the President will hold a town hall meeting here at the White House in the East Room on health care, which will be broadcast on ABC during prime time.

Q Do you know what time?

MR. GIBBS: I believe it’s taped at 8:00 p.m. and broadcast at 10:00 p.m., if I’m not mistaken.

Q Coverage? Are the rest of the press in there as well?

MR. GIBBS: I assume so. I assume we’ll put a pool in there at least.

On Thursday the President will participate in a service event in Washington. The President will also host a small group of Senate and House members from both sides of the aisle at the White House for an immigration meeting. The meeting is to continue the conversation with the hopes of beginning the debate in earnest later this year. In the evening the President will host a picnic for members of Congress and their families on the South Lawn. And next Friday the President will meet with German Chancellor Merkel here at the White House.

Ms. Loven.

Q The House resolution, it asks for a direct condemnation of the government in Iran’s use of violence against protestors. And that kind of direct condemnation has not come from the White House this week. Can you comment on the resolution?

MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously, we welcome the resolution and we believe despite the question that it echoes the words of President Obama throughout the week. I think he –

Q But you’ve been saying that you hope they don’t use violence and directly — it may be a small difference, but it’s a big difference to some people.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President was pretty clear on Monday in the avail with Berlusconi.

Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn’t say they shouldn’t do it or directly criticize them for doing it.

MR. GIBBS: That’s not the way I read it. I think when the –

Q I have the

MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he’s: deeply troubled by what I’ve seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy — I stand strongly with the universal principle that people’s voices should be heard and not be suppressed.

I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.

Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.

MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.

Q So comment on the resolution?

MR. GIBBS: As I said earlier, we welcome it. It’s consistent with what the President has said.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President’s reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on — saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I’ve said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that — to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.

Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.

I will say, as the President has said, we’re not going to be used as political foils and political footballs in a debate that’s happening by Iranians in Iran. There are many people in the leadership that would love us to get involved.

Q The leadership of Iran?

MR. GIBBS: Yes. And would love to trot out the same old foils they have for many years. That’s not what we’re going to do.

Q Let me ask you one non-Iran question. Do you have a reaction to the indictment of Allen Stanford?

MR. GIBBS: I would certainly — I obviously would point you for details to the Department of Justice. But I think whether it’s this indictment or previous indictments that we have seen over the course of many months — I know we’ve talked specifically about Mr. Madoff — there are those whose outsized greed robbed millions of people of their savings and created part of a culture that led us to parts of the economic disaster that we’ve seen in this country.

I think the President has tried to address some of that in different proposals as well as financial regulatory reform. And we hope that those that have lost their savings will see justice.

Yes, sir.

Q Earlier this year the special inspector general for TARP, Neil Barofsky, tried to get documents relating to AIG. The Treasury Department rebuffed that request, although ultimately I think they did turn over the documents — but the Treasury Department sought a ruling from the Justice Department on just how independent Neil Barofsky’s office is supposed to be. Please explain from the administration’s perspective what exactly is going on here and why it appears as though the Treasury Department is pushing back against an independent inspector general.

MR. GIBBS: Obviously, Jake, the President believes that inspectors general fulfill a unique and important role in ensuring that programs operate with efficiency. No attorney-client privilege on any of this stuff has been invoked. No documents sought have been or are being withheld. The DOJ review is not related to any particular investigation. It is sorting out the legal issues relating to the creation of the office.

Q Right, but could you explain — could you actually answer my question? I understand the talking points you’ve been given, but can you answer my question, which is, why would the Treasury Department push back against the inspector general trying to get the documents –

MR. GIBBS: Well, again –

Q I understand the –

MR. GIBBS: I would point you to DOJ on the specifics on the specifics of that, and point you to the fact that the documents haven’t been withheld.

Q But Robert, we’re only, what, 150-some days into this –

MR. GIBBS: A hundred and fifty one.

Q A hundred and fifty one days into this presidency. Already the President has fired one inspector general, and his Treasury Department is challenging the independence of a different inspector general. Can you understand why people who believed the President when he talked about the desire to be held accountable and the need for transparency would say –

MR. GIBBS: Jake, we outlined the reasons why the inspector general for the Corporation of National Service, acted upon by the bipartisan board, recommended that he not be retained. I think we’ve discussed that. I know you’ve discussed that with the staff in many ways, and there are issues that are being sorted out in terms of the creation of different offices, but no documents are being withheld.

Q Right, but why did the Treasury Department push back? I understand ultimately they gave the documents, but why did they not –

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have anything from Treasury. I can certainly look and see what legal issues they were concerned about.

Q Is the precedent that — do you believe, does the President believe that the inspector general should be able to get whatever documents he needs to –

MR. GIBBS: The inspector general has gotten those documents.

Q With a struggle.

MR. GIBBS: Jake, I don’t know how — more to say that the inspector — the answer to your question is the inspector general has the documents that the inspector general wanted.

Q Well, either the Treasury Department respects the office of this inspector general or it doesn’t.

MR. GIBBS: Well, Jake, we can go back and forth on your question and my answer. I think I’ve answered the question.

Helen.

Q Is the President going to drop the public option in lieu of the opposition on the conservatives on the Hill –

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q — including the Democrats?

MR. GIBBS: No.

Q He’s going to fight for it?

MR. GIBBS: The President believes strongly that for the uninsured entering the market there has to be choice and competition. The American people, coincidently, believe that too. The President believes it’s an important aspect of any health care reform plan that has to go through Congress.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, in light of the Ayatollah’s comments and just the overall climate in Iran, is it more difficult now for the administration to have any kind of significant dialogue with Iran over the nuclear issue?

MR. GIBBS: The President and the team don’t believe so. This is — again, we’ve talked about this, our interests remain the same. We’re concerned about the Islamic Republic living up to its responsibilities as it relates to nuclear weapons.

Q But if they’re saying — the Ayatollah is saying, you know, the U.S. is giving mixed messages or the President, specifically — I mean, how will that complicate the dialogue?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t think anybody should be under the illusion that any of this will be easy, but our interests remain the same, I think the interests of the world remain the same. I think, again, we have a pretty good sense of what not engaging with Iran, what the results of that are, in the number of several thousand spinning centrifuges. The President discussed the notion that we have to do things differently and I think you see, as we’ve said, we’ve seen at least the ferment, as the President said, of productive change in Iran.

Q And I’m wondering if — you know, the fact that the President has said he doesn’t want to meddle in the election there, is it not possible to have very strong language in support of the Iranian people without meddling?

MR. GIBBS: Oh, it is — the President did it on Monday and Tuesday.

Q But some would believe that it’s not strong enough.

MR. GIBBS: Well, I know there are some Republicans that didn’t believe it was strong enough. There are some Republicans that did believe it was strong enough.

Q But is it possible for him to have stronger language without taking sides?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President feels comfortable with the strong language that he employed on Monday and Tuesday to discuss this very situation. But, Dan, let me repeat again, there are people in Iran that would love for us to get involved. There are people in Iran who would love not to make it about one side in Iran versus another, but to make this about Iran versus the West or Iran versus the United States of America. It worked great for years. The President is not going to do that. I think many others, Democrat and Republican, have discussed the wisdom in that stance and the President is quite comfortable with where he is.

Q Can I just follow, Robert?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Q As far as Iran is concerned, President has been reaching to everyone in that part of the world, including his speech in Turkey, his speech in Cairo, and here a very clear message as far as democracy and changes in those part of the world was concerned. You think President’s voices are being heard and his message, because what he was expecting that we care for you, but you (inaudible), we will work with you and changes must come in that part of the world just like in the U.S. or elsewhere.

MR. GIBBS: I think that the actions that the administration has taken and the voice of this President in reaching out, whether it was interviews early in the administration, messages to the people, directly to the people of Iran, the speech in Cairo — I do think that people have heard the President’s message. The President understands that five months of activity or an interview, a message and a speech aren’t going to change everything overnight. But I think the President feels confident that we’re making progress in that region of the world.

Q One more, please?

MR. GIBBS: Let me go with Chip.

Q Maybe I missed this and maybe it’s redundant, but I just want to get it clarified. Does the President condemn the actions of the Iranian government?

MR. GIBBS: He has condemned the violence. He’s condemned –

Q But does he condemn the actions of the Ayatollah –

MR. GIBBS: Well, the violence is being conducted by the government, right? The Revolutionary Guard — the pictures that we saw on Monday that the President reacted to, that was them.

Q So he’s clearly condemning the government of Iran?

MR. GIBBS: I think if you look at what he said throughout the week, it’s clear.

Q On health care, some dire reports out there — I’m sure they’re much more dire than you think they ought to be — but there have been delays up there. There are a lot of Democrats who say that the price tag now is just eye-popping, especially in light of the CBO analysis. And there are — and Republicans feel they’re getting tremendous traction here on the cost issue and that the tide is turning in their favor. Is this coming off the rails to any degree?

MR. GIBBS: No. I’m reminded that in five short months of the administration, about every six weeks I’m asked if the current initiative is heading off the rails; if something has unwound. We did it with the recovery plan, we did it with our budget, we did it with the recent supplemental –

Q But this is much bigger and more difficult than any of those.

MR. GIBBS: I would love to have posited that in response to one of your questions in, say, early January, mid-March, or just a few weeks ago in the supplemental. Look, Chip, there is a legislative process that takes time to wind its way through. This is an issue –

Q What inning are we in? What inning are we in on health care?

MR. GIBBS: Early, right? Maybe second? You still got plenty of time to get a beer and a hot dog before last call. (Laughter.)

Q They don’t have hot dogs.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I was going to say maybe a better alternative than a hot dog. I’m going to get a hot dog.

But look, I think we had an introduction of a bill in the House today — or a release of a piece of legislation in the House today that upholds the President’s goal of cutting costs, increasing the quality of health care in America, broadening accessibility. The health committee that Senator Dodd is leading right now is marking up a bill and making progress. I think we continue to put one foot in front of the other in the march toward health care reform.

But as I’ve said before, there’s a reason this is an issue that’s been debated back and forth for 40 years. Again, I think some of the most important things that came out of CBO this week were underscoring — I know this doesn’t get a lot of news attention because there’s no conflict — but underscoring the notion that the President has outlined a series of steps that CBO believes must be taken in order to deal with the rising costs of health care as it relates to the government’s budget.

We think those are all positive developments and we have — I think if you look back at some of the efforts that have been done over the past few decades, we have stakeholders that are involved in this that are on occasion split up and on different sides and shooting back and forth at each other that are all at the table working on this. So I wouldn’t call it a game in the second inning.

Chuck.

Q I want to follow up on the Iran stuff. You said nothing would change — you know, sort of, nothing is going to change sort of what the President wants to do in a policy toward Iran and having to do with the nuclear situation. Does the administration believe there should be consequences, though, in any future dialogue that is started, or whatever, based on the actions that the Iranian government has taken in this time period?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I don’t want to get ahead of any of the dialogue. I think the President has been clear in underscoring and deploring the violence. But as I’ve said, Chuck, we still have U.S. interests on many issues including the one on nuclear weapons.

Q So what message does that send? I mean, one of the things that you guys –

MR. GIBBS: The message that it sends is we’re very clear about dealing with their nuclear weapons.

Q Even if it means dealing with a regime that you think may have stolen an election, may have started violence, may have pushed back — set back freedom, potential for freedom?

MR. GIBBS: This is about — well, I think the President and the international community understand the importance of dealing with what they all believe is the danger of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon.

Q Are you going to look to the United Nations for some international capacity to sort of condemn — if there is — because of this violence that you now say that we should — that you guys have condemned the Iranian government — should there be some sort of U.N. action that maybe does this?

MR. GIBBS: I have not talked to anybody on our team at the U.N. I think what you see — I think you see the size of marches increase. I think you see the passion increase. But I don’t know of any steps that are happening at the U.N.

Q Quickly on immigration. He said something today in his speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast, that he wanted to seek comprehensive immigration reform. In his hundred-day press conference he talked about — he seemed to step back from that. So what’s changed since — before he said, “We want to enforce some laws on the books, then we’ll start looking at trying to do some more.”

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that –

Q I mean, has something changed since the hundred-day –

MR. GIBBS: No, I think the meeting next week will continue this process. But as we’ve said before, Chuck, we know there’s — we know the votes aren’t there right now. This is a –

Q And that’s what’s dictating the timetable. (Laughter.)
MR. GIBBS: I’ll point you ad nauseum to any number of the questions on health care that might — I mean, yes, if we can’t seek 50 plus one, it will be tough to pass.

No, I mean, to be more serious, I think there’s a seriousness in an effort, but in understanding that in — I think in 2005 and 2006, even in 2007, there was not a majority yet to do this. We want to work with those, both in favor and support of those previous efforts, to see where we can get comprehensive immigration reform to pass.

Yes, ma’am.

Q Back on health care for a moment. The Senate Finance Committee is trying to bring the total costs of the bill down to a trillion dollars or less, and I understand the White House supports that goal, as well. Are you willing to make the tradeoffs that would be needed specifically in order to bring the costs down? Forget about the pay-for, but just to bring the actual costs down you’re going to have to turn back the benefit package, turn back the number of people who qualify for subsidies, the size of the subsidies; that’s how you bring the costs down. Is that a tradeoff that you’re willing to make?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we continue to watch what’s going on as the finance committee works through this process. I would mention that the President has put, I think at last count, $950 billion on the table as — you’re shaking your head — it’s actually –

Q No, but that’s not really relevant to my question. My question is, how do you pay for it; my question is, how much do you need to pay for?

MR. GIBBS: Well, but you did talk about pay-fors, right? And if we’re going to talk about — if you’re going to talk about trimming the cost down to a trillion, then I’m going to tell you that $950 billion has been put on the table. I actually think $950 billion of a trillion is actually a relevant part of the conversation to have. The President believes it’s a relevant part of the conversation. He’s talked about the fact that this plan has to be deficit-neutral. I think in many ways that’s a good portion of the answer.

The President isn’t going to sign a health care bill — I know you’re shaking your head, let me just try to finish this. The President is not going to sign a health care bill that increases the size of the deficit. In fact, the budget resolution won’t allow him to do that, right? Right.

So $950 billion is indeed relevant because having a series and an amount of money in order to pay for that bill equaling the cost of that bill will be part of what has to happen in order to get that through the process.

Q I probably didn’t ask the question clearly enough. What I was trying to ask was not how are you going to pay for it, are you serious about paying for it. You’ve spoken to that extensively. What I’m saying is in order to bring –

MR. GIBBS: Hoping, persuasive — but yes, go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q I said –

MR. GIBBS: I was pressing my luck.

Q I said I don’t disagree –

MR. GIBBS: I put $950 billion on persuasive.

Q I don’t disagree that you have put $950 billion of offsets on the table. My question is, in order to get the price of the bill down to $1 trillion from an estimated, what the last finance markup was, over $1.6 trillion — in order to bring that cost down, there are consequences which are reducing the benefit package, reducing the subsidies. And I want to know whether those are tradeoffs that the White House is willing to make.

(Cell phone rings.)

MR. GIBBS: Yes. We are — whose phone is that? All right, I’m kind of itchy here on Friday, I would love to take somebody’s phone. (Laughter.)

Obviously this whole process is going to be about how do we get something that is paid for and gets through the legislative process. I think the President has discussed this throughout the campaign. And I don’t know what the structure, in all honesty, of what is contained in the finance committee’s markup package of what — all the details of what that benefit looks like, the degree to which it goes out in terms of incidence of — percentage of your income above some percentage of poverty.

But there’s no doubt that these are exactly the types of tradeoffs and decisions that are going to have to be made throughout this process in order to get something — whether it’s — regardless of what that ultimate number is — and, again, the President has been very forceful in saying that that number has to be paid for, and that in looking for those resources we have to take the steps necessary, as we talked about a little earlier ago, to bend the curve on the government’s cost of health care in the future; that if we’re not taking those steps, then we’re not getting health care reform.

So all of those things are what I think will be — will take up Congress’s time and the President’s time in the next few weeks.

Yes, sir.

Q On tobacco and this legislation he’s going to sign on Monday, to what extent can we expect him to fold his own experience into what he’s going to say, his own experience with smoking?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I anticipate he’ll have — he’ll mention that in the remarks. You know, as we talked about last week when the President discussed his pleasure in seeing a bill that has wound its way through a legislative process for more than a decade to land on the President’s desk for his signature — he understands the struggles of millions of Americans with tobacco.

Yes, sir.

Q When will the President sign the war supplemental?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t have an answer on — I don’t know that we’ve received the legislation yet, but it will be — I don’t anticipate that it will take long after we receive it.

Q On Iran, Republican Leader John Boehner said today that the U.S. should lead an international embargo on gasoline sales to Iran as a way to encourage the government not to use violence against protestors. Does the President think that’s a good idea, or are there other concrete steps the U.S. could take to –

MR. GIBBS: I didn’t see those comments before I came out here. We can have somebody look into that. Sanctions is something we’ve discussed. The President authored a bill that I can get you the details on, that as I recall was blocked last year by a Republican to put some stronger sanctions on Iran, and we’ll get you some information on that.

Q But do you think that sanctions now are an appropriate response to the way the Iranian government is behaving towards protestors?

MR. GIBBS: Well, you know, I think the President — well, I don’t want to get into the tit-for-tat on that right now.

Major.

Q Just to follow up on that quickly, when you said, “Sanctions are something we’ve discussed,” you mean generally — not in the context of this crisis?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I’m sorry. Yes, thank you, yes.

Q Yes, I just wanted to clarify that.

All right, I’ve got three topics, but one question on each, I promise.

MR. GIBBS: Okay. Hey, don’t tell me. (Laughter.)

Q Does the White House believe the Congressional Budget Office is an effective and reliable arbiter of the scoring of health care proposals and does it have any –

MR. GIBBS: To you it certainly does. (Laughter.)

Q — sort of say about the House Speaker and Chris Dodd, who were significant players in this debate, both in the last 48 hours criticized CBO’s methodology and the scoring that has come up –

MR. GIBBS: Well, but remember — and I haven’t seen the exact comments, but remember that — and I think even –

Q The Speaker said she’s frustrated because the CBO, in her words, always comes up with a “worst case scenario.” And Dodd has said he’s never understood why we have to please the CBO instead of ourselves as legislators. Is there — and I just wondered if the White House is satisfied with that kind of commentary.

MR. GIBBS: Maybe some of that frustration is the fact that right now CBO is looking at older proposals or half measures. I think the Dodd legislation that originally was scored wasn’t a final product. I don’t think there were savings mechanisms in there about bending the cost of health care.

But look, the President, as I said pretty clearly today, the President is going to look for health care reform that’s fully paid for.

Q By the measurement of the Congressional Budget Office.

MR. GIBBS: Unless or until somebody comes up with something different, yes.

Q On North Korea, under the sanctions, any member nation that wishes to enforce either the tracking of a suspect vessel or its inspection or shepherding that vessel to port must obtain the permission from its own government at the political and military level. That’s the language within 1874. Has the President been asked for permission for the U.S. Navy to board –

MR. GIBBS: Not that I’m aware of.

Q Okay. And is there anything about the cargo on this vessel that leads you to believe that request is likely to come?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t want to get into that sort of specificity.

Q Okay. Last topic. The prayer breakfast today reminded me of something the President said during the campaign, that he would hope to or he probably would have a church selected for his and the girls’ and Michelle’s attendance in January. We’re now in June — can you update us on either the President’s churchgoing habits or his process in selecting a church?

MR. GIBBS: I know they’re continuing to look for a permanent place, mindful of many things.

Q Such as?

MR. GIBBS: What it does when a President decides to walk out of this building and walk into a different building and disrupt worshippers that are attending for their own personal reasons. I think that is certainly — that’s not an exhaustive list, but certainly one of the things that the President has on his mind about that.

Q Anything else that he has on his mind about it?

MR. GIBBS: Yes, I think there’s wanting to ensure that he finds a church that he, Michelle, and the girls feel most comfortable in.

Q Robert, following on that –

Q Does he use the chapel in Camp David?

MR. GIBBS: He does.

Q Robert, a follow on church?

MR. GIBBS: Sure.

Q Is the President, since he has not found a church home here in Washington yet, is he — is a minister being brought in to the White House on Sundays to have a service with the family? And is that also happening at Camp David?

MR. GIBBS: Well, as I’ve just said to Major, the President has been and very much enjoys the chapel and the chaplain up at Camp David. I don’t know that anybody has been brought in here.

Q And also real fast on something, the Senate has unanimously passed a symbolic resolution apologizing for slavery and racial segregation, and sent the measure to the House. This being the first black President — Bill Clinton did not apologize for slavery; George W. Bush said he would not do it as Africans were also involved in the slave trade. Does this President think that that’s something that should indeed happen?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I have not spoken with him specifically about the Senate resolution and I’d want to get his view on that.

Q Okay, well, what is the President’s thought about slavery, especially since he invoked –

MR. GIBBS: Opposed. (Laughter.)

Q Excuse me?

MR. GIBBS: Opposed.

Q Especially since –

MR. GIBBS: April, you just asked me what the President’s view on slavery was. What did you think I was going to say? (Laughter.)

Q You didn’t let me finish my –

MR. GIBBS: Okay, look, this is a very serious topic –

Q Yes, thank you.

MR. GIBBS: — I just want to note that that was your question. Go ahead, I’m sorry.

Q Okay, but I want to finish the statement –

MR. GIBBS: And it does drive me crazy when one doesn’t get a chance to finish their entire statement before somebody else — I’m sorry, I’m off track, go ahead. (Laughter.) It is Friday, guys; I’m just trying to have a little fun.

Q Anyway, you know, especially dealing with this issue of slavery, especially since he invoked the issue of slavery over a year ago in his Philadelphia speech on race, is it something that this White House could indeed tackle? Bill Clinton tackled it and tabled it in his second term when he dealt with the race initiative. Is this something –

MR. GIBBS: Tackled and tabled what? I’m sorry.

Q The apology — the possibility of an apology for slavery.

MR. GIBBS: Well, one, I don’t know if this is even something that — just purely legislatively, I don’t know if the resolution per se ultimately comes here or not for signature. I don’t know the answer to that.

Look, I think the President has spoken on any number of occasions about the stain that slavery left on this country, that throughout our history we have sought to better perfect our union and have had many bumps along the way. And one of the most significant of those stains is that of slavery; that it is clearly something that we continue to struggle with. The President obviously hopes that we can make progress on race relations and that we all have a deeper and better understanding of backgrounds and beliefs.

Yes, sir.

Q We’ve heard senior administration officials say that what’s happening in Iran is not about us. And we’ve also heard them say that they’ve never seen anything like this in Iran before. Does the White House think that the President’s outreach to the Muslim world, in Cairo or to Iran specifically in the New Year’s greeting, is influencing events in Iran right now?

MR. GIBBS: I think — I wouldn’t in any way seek for the administration to take the credit for what we’re seeing in Iran. I don’t know that — as you said, I’m not sure that anybody, even a week ago or so would have expected to see the courageous images that we’re seeing now.

I will say that I think that there are those in Iran and those throughout the Middle East that have noticed a different way of operating by this country, and that they’ve seen — and I think we’ve seen some improved relations, and I think we’ve also seen some improvement in the way this country is thought of by many countries in that region of the world. And I think that’s tremendously important not because we all have to feel better, but because there are very important foreign policy and strategic interests that we’ve discussed a lot in that region of the world.

I do think that I think you are seeing in Iran — I think you’re definitely witnessing something extraordinary. I think you’re witnessing something that many people might not have presumed or imagined, like I said, just a few — even a few weeks or a few days ago. And I think part of that is sort of what we discussed earlier, and that is I think there are those in Iran that see the United States of America not as it has been described to them, not as those have wanted their people to believe. I think that is a positive development for this country and for the entire world.

Q A quick follow-up. Do you have any idea how the Cairo speech was consumed in Iran? In other words, was it shown on –

MR. GIBBS: I can have those guys pull and see if we have stuff in terms of some of the social networking sites, or what media it might have been shown in –

Q Farsi one of the SMS –

MR. GIBBS: Yes, yes. So let me see if we can get you some stats on that.

Yes, sir.

Q Just briefly, back on health care and the struggles of trying to figure out how to pay for what it is that is ultimately agreed on. Obviously there’s been some talk, at least among some of the Democrats, of additional taxes, various things that — and also the discussion of taxing the employer benefits. The Republicans, it probably won’t surprise you to hear, are accusing Democrats of preparing a tax fest to pay for the President’s plan, which is not affordable. What’s your reaction to that?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I mean, Mark, I think if you — if I’m not mistaken, I can think of at least one Republican off the top of my head that talked about changing the tax benefits for the exclusion. I think if I sat at Google for about five minutes I could probably get you several dozen. I think one of the major reform bills that’s up there right now that’s been written by Senator Burr includes, if not a complete ending of the exclusion, some cap of it. So maybe they –

Q The RNC is specifically suggesting that some of these taxes are going to break the President’s pledge of not taxing the middle class.

MR. GIBBS: I think the President was pretty clear on that in an interview earlier this week relating to financial regulation. I think the President believes, as he said in that interview, that he’s put forward a course of action that he thinks is best able at this point to put that skin in the game. The bulk of that is changing the way we pay for health care. It’s injecting — it’s taking subsidies out of — for Medicare middle men, and it’s going back to the charitable deduction rates of the Reagan era. So I think there are — the President feels confident about what he’s put on the table.

Let me just go back to it — I think I read this earlier, but wondered what the President said earlier this week: “I do believe that something has happened in Iran where there’s a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past and that there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see a greater democracy.”

Yes, sir.

Q Back on North Korea. Has the U.S. reached out to any other countries, as far as helping in tracking that wayward freighter out there that — and is the U.S. looking at options beyond the U.N. resolution or possibly boarding it one day?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into operational specificity. As Ambassador Rice said here just one week ago, we sought from the United Nations and the international community strict sanctions on the movement of — possible movement of this type of material, and we’re fully committed to implementing what’s in those resolutions right now and changing, hopefully, the course of some behavior.

Yes, sir.

Q Robert, what kind of outreach was there to the House in shaping the Iran resolution?

MR. GIBBS: I assume some people talked — were in conversations, but I don’t know to what degree.

Q But definitely –

MR. GIBBS: I assume that –

Q Somebody in the White House –

MR. GIBBS: I assume so, yes.

Q And on immigration. What the President talked about this morning sounded similar to what was discussed in the summer of ‘07. You said the votes aren’t there for it now. How do you get –

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think you get there through the continuation of this dialogue and see if you can come up with ultimately — I mean, obviously, look, if you put up just what was out there we’re going to have to look through that and other ideas. And I think the President looks forward to — keep in mind that there will be people at the White House next week that don’t agree with where the President and others are. There are going to be final invitations having gone out. There are going to be members from both sides of the aisle next week to discuss it.

Yes.

Q There’s The Wall Street Journal report that President Obama wants to include civil unions to be counted in the census. Can you talk about that? Is that something the President wants?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think, obviously, as we’ve discussed, the President and the administration are committed to a fair and accurate count of all Americans. And as the piece said, we’re in the midst of determining the best way to ensure that gay and lesbian couples are accurately counted.

Q And just to follow up on John Berry’s call that we had the other day when the President signed the memorandum, he talked about the need for a specific number of votes to fulfill the President’s campaign promise of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, and he kept saying 60 votes in the Senate. But is the White House talking to Republicans that might favor the repeal of this? I know there are a few.

MR. GIBBS: Yes, look, I think the administration — well, obviously, for math purposes, we’re going to have to have a coalition of people that believe, on each of those interests, that the policy isn’t serving our nation well. And the President is committed to making progress on both of those issues.

Steve.

Q Robert, back on the question of this apology for slavery. The Senate resolution also includes a disclaimer of sorts. It said, “This should never be used to argue for reparations.” The Congressional Black Caucus is very unhappy about that; it may not win their support when it goes back to the House. Does the President think reparations should be ruled out?

MR. GIBBS: The President has not and does not favor reparations.

Yes, sir.

Q Thank you. In the spirit of the discussion on Iran, have the Russians shared with you the results of their own discussion with the Iranian leader who they hosted recently in their own country?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know the answer to that, whether NSC had discussed –

Q I really wanted to ask you about the upcoming trip to Russia. And I know it’s probably too early, but can you talk in general about how the President gets ready for such trips, how early he starts, what the preparations involve? Is there any input from the outside — outside of the White House?

MR. GIBBS: Well, the process in many ways for this upcoming and important trip to Moscow started not long after, and in some cases working on specific initiatives, before the G20 in late March. Obviously, we have a robust agenda with which we hope to discuss, particularly surrounding making — restarting arms control talks. And hopefully, by the end of the year coming to an agreement about some specific numbers to eliminate nuclear — begin to take some steps to eliminate even further nuclear weapons that each side has toward the President’s goal ultimately of a nuclear-free world.

Q I’ve seen comments in the press suggesting that it’s still a different type of a visit, going to Moscow, than going to Europe, for instance, or even going to the Arab world as he has done recently. Is it really for you? Is it any different in terms of preparations, in terms of –

MR. GIBBS: No, I think — look, I think everybody understands the importance of the issues that are going to be discussed. I think in many ways the preparation — the preparation is not that much different. We certainly hope that we can make some substantive progress on issues that we know are of importance to both sides.

David.

Q And lastly, when did –

MR. GIBBS: Maybe we have to move you up to the first row, if you keep asking more questions. (Laughter.)

Q When did they last talk, the two Presidents?

MR. GIBBS: I don’t know that they’ve spoken since the G20. I mean, I know, obviously, General Jones has spoken with his counterpart; Mike McFaul has had many discussions. But I don’t believe the two Presidents have spoken since that date.

Q In the past week, has the President spoken to any outside-the-government experts on Iran? And, if so, who?

MR. GIBBS: I can check. I don’t know that — I don’t –

Q Has he spoken to anybody on the subject?

MR. GIBBS: Outside the government? I don’t know the answer to that, but I can certainly check.

Yes, sir.

Q Earlier in the week, the President said that he felt the supreme leader was aware that the people of Iran were concerned about the election — I think it’s a fair summary of what you said. Is that still the case, given that the supreme leader said in his speech that Ahmadinejad had won by 11 million votes, and that the Iranians have spoken?

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think the international community and the United States continues to have concern about the way in which the election was conducted. And I think that concern is pretty well held by the hundreds of thousands of people that continue to seek some sort of justice.

Yes, sir.

Q Was the President disappointed to hear the supreme leader coming out — he’s saying that his opinion is closer to those of Ahmadinejad; they’re closer to Ahmadinejad’s opinion than to those of Rafsanjani, the reformist who backed Mousavi?

MR. GIBBS: Well, again, I don’t want to get into a back and forth. I think the President continues to be concerned about ensuring that those that seek the justice that I was just speaking about had the opportunity to do that. But I don’t want to get into a comparison about –

Q Does he still believe there are different centers of power in Iran?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we’re witnessing the fact that there are different belief structures and different centers in Iran.

Yes, ma’am.

Q You actually — just to follow up on something you had discussed in yesterday’s briefing. Can you speak to the U.S.’s or the White House’s confidence in Saudi Arabia’s relocation program with detainees that (inaudible) terror suspects over there? And kind of on that same subject, has the White House or has the President been having discussions with anyone from Saudi Arabia, officials of the country, about taking I think it was the Yemeni detainees that are –

MR. GIBBS: I believe that we have had discussions with the Yemeni government, and have had discussions at different levels with the Saudi government about that program and about detainees that are — some that have been transferred, and some that are still held at Guantanamo Bay.

Obviously I think the President believes that — and has said repeatedly, he is not going to make a decision to — on anything related to Guantanamo that would threaten the security of our country. But I don’t want to get into any depth about some of those discussions.

Q But did that come up in his conversations –

MR. GIBBS: Discussing Guantanamo definitely came up.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I wondered, did the President watch Ayatollah Khomeini’s speech? And then –

MR. GIBBS: Not that I know of.

Q And then I also wanted to ask about the House resolution. You’ve said repeatedly that the U.S. isn’t going to get involved in it, but when more than 400 members of the people’s representatives make a clear statement about it, isn’t that the U.S. getting involved?

MR. GIBBS: Well, no, I think, again, let’s — the resolution expresses the support of all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. That’s the sort of topic sentence. I think the President has spoken out throughout the past week on the universal principle contained in each of those values. And I don’t think that expressing support for the ferment or expressing outrage in the violence is meddling in the Iranian process.

Yes, ma’am.

Q I just wondered if you could clarify, as far as health care tradeoffs. When you did say that you’re willing to reduce health care benefits and subsidies, are you in any way also including health care tax benefits and subsidies?

MR. GIBBS: I’m sorry?

Q Are you in any way willing to consider reducing health care tax benefits?

MR. GIBBS: Well, we’ve done this like 15 times and I think the President spoke pretty clearly to this in that interview that I discussed a minute ago on financial regulation earlier in the week.

Yes, sir.

Q Thanks. If we could go back to inspector general issue. Senator Grassley issued two letters yesterday and since then he’s been really pushing the AmeriCorps issue. But he issued two letters to both the Treasury Department and the International Trade Commission regarding their inspector general. And could someone infer that there is a trend in the administration towards inspector general based on –

MR. GIBBS: If they inferred it, it would be an incorrect inference.

Q Thank you, Robert.

MR. GIBBS: Thank you.

Q Happy Father’s Day.

MR. GIBBS: Happy Father’s Day to all you guys
Copyright © 2009 Whitehouse

Canadian and U.S. health insurance companies – including Toronto’s Sun Life Financial Inc. – have more than $3 billion (U.S.) invested in the tobacco industry, a letter published today in the New England Journal of Medicine charges.

By refusing to quit their addiction to cigarette profits, the insurers lose any moral right to help set health policy, the letter’s Harvard University authors argue.

“Disgusting, depressing, I’ve heard a lot of words to describe the fact the insurance industry is invested in tobacco,” says Dr. Wesley Boyd, the letter’s lead author.

“By exposing their investments in tobacco, it pulls the rug out from under them in terms of saying they should be credible players (in health policy discussions).”

Boyd’s research shows Sun Life, which markets life, health and disability insurance in Canada and the U.S., has more than $1 billion invested in tobacco firms, with nearly $890 million in Philip Morris USA, the maker of Marlboro cigarettes.

In an email response to the Star, a senior Sun Life official called the information cited in the journal “categorically incorrect” and said the company’s “exposure to `tobacco’ stocks” was less than 0.005 per cent of an investment portfolio worth “well over” $100 billion. “Notwithstanding the size, diversification and time horizon of our portfolio, Sun Life does not carry significant holdings in tobacco stocks,” wrote Michel Leduc, vice-president of public and corporate affairs.

A subsequent request for clarification about the actual dollar figures used in the journal letter, however, was denied by Sun Life.

Boyd said he calculated Sun Life’s tobacco investment using shareholder information that showed it owned 1.86 per cent of tobacco giant Lorillard Tobacco Company shares and 1.1 per cent of Philip Morris stocks in March.

Boyd acknowledged there is a seemingly self-defeating aspect to insurance companies investing in a product that could cost them billions in paid out claims.

But, he said, insurers are simply “hedging” their bets with their tobacco investments, making up with their cigarette holdings some of the money they would lose to the stiff payouts that smoking costs them.

“They’re going to make money if you smoke by investing in tobacco and they’re going to make money if you don’t smoke because they’re going to pay out less,” he said.

As well, Boyd said, insurers typically charge smokers higher premiums. “So they get them on the front end by charging them higher premiums and then also making money … directly off their tobacco habit. It’s a bit like the combination veterinarian and taxidermy office which promises that either way you get your pet back.”

Boyd’s work is a follow-up to his group’s 1995 study, which revealed the insurance-tobacco nexus.

Leduc said Sun Life has a “solid record of responsibility” that extended to its investments. He said its investment in green energy projects was more than $1.2 billion and that it spent about $1 billion over the past three years to help build or renovate some 20 hospitals. “Together, these two categories alone (about 2 per cent of our investment portfolio) amount to nearly 500 times the size of `tobacco’ stocks.”

But Boyd said insurers, particularly in the U.S., lobby fiercely for private health coverage over public programs.

Copyright 2009 Thestar

‘World No Tobacco Day’ has been marked here, as it has been around the world. NGOs forming a coalition against tobacco have staged a walk; at seminars the dangers of the substance have been highlighted and Pakistan Railways has taken a big leap forward by banning smoking on its trains. But is the battle against tobacco really being won? Statistics indicate that smoking is growing in Third World countries even as levels drop in the developed world. The reasons are linked to the fact that awareness campaigns mean people in the west are less likely than before to take up the habit. This means that for giant companies who earn profits at the cost of health, the parts of the world where people have less access to information now offers the most lucrative markets.

Has enough been done in our country to discourage tobacco? The fact is that while laws have come in, restricting sales to juveniles or smoking in public places, implementation has been very poor. There is also a need for more aggressive effort to drive home the message about tobacco. Cigarettes and the ’sheesha’ which has arrived over the last decade remain something of a fashion statement for the young and trendy. Health of course is rarely an issue teenagers think deeply about. There is also a growing rate of smoking among young women. Somewhere, despite the warnings on cigarette packets and the other efforts made, there has not been as much success as we would like to see. Surveys show people remain willing to ignore warnings. The WHO campaign for pictures as well as words on the warning labels is one we need to take up, given the high rate of illiteracy – and the fact that often, quite literally, pictures drive home messages where sentences fail. We also need to focus on spreading the ‘no tobacco’ message among children. They after all are the smokers of the future; in many cases they also have been able to dissuade parents who smoke. This then is a group that needs to be targeted in a more focalized manner, so that in the coming years we can have a society where tobacco is less commonplace than what is currently the case.
Copyright © 2009 Thenews

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

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

R.J. Reynolds vowed to appeal.

CHILDREN as young as 11 can easily buy cigarettes from vending machines throughout the North-East, tests have revealed.

Underage youngsters were able to buy cigarettes in 58 out of 99 cases in a survey carried out by Trading Standards officers

Children aged between 11 and 16 went into bars, amusement arcades, bowling alleys and other outlets across the region.

On most occasions, the children were able to buy cigarettes from machines unchallenged by staff.

One 15-year-old was given change by staff to make sure he could buy from the machine.

Some employees even helped children who were having difficulty getting the money into the slot.

Officers said that most failures to purchase cigarettes were due to faulty coins or machines, rather than the children being stopped by staff.

Even the 11-year-old was only turned away twice in 14 attempts.

The North-East Trading Standards Association has recently called for cigarette vending machines to be banned.

The tests were carried out to show how easy it is for children to buy cigarettes, even though the legal age to buy tobacco is now 18.

Richard Ferry, from the North-East Trading Standards Association, said: “We have always thought that these machines are a menace and this massive regional study shows that it really is time to ban these machines.

“Vending machines are expensive, but remain a significant source of cigarettes for young people, which is why we carryout regular checks like these.

“We must reduce the availability of a dangerous product to youngsters and banning vending machines would have a big impact.”

According to the association, surveys show 17 per cent of regular smokers aged 11 to 15 usually buy their cigarettes from vending machines.

In contrast, last year only one in 20 adult daily smokers said they had bought cigarettes from vending machines over the past six months.

Trading Standards authorities will now be taking further steps in the most serious cases.

This can include legal action or a recommendation to a magistrates’ court to order the machine is removed.

Source: Thenorthernecho

The Target 12 Investigators uncover tax dollars going up in smoke. We confront cigarette sellers after discovering some may not be honest in paying cigarette taxes.

Target 12 has learned that Rhode Island is losing thousands, potentially millions of dollars to retailers who try and cheat the system and pocket the cash themselves.

Rhode Island raked in more than a hundred million dollars last year. The money was used to pay for things like education and public safety. But now, with the highest cigarette taxes in the country, there’s temptation to cheat.

There is no denying that cigarettes are a huge cash cow for Rhode Island. On every pack sold the state collects $3.46 in taxes. It’s so important. It’s what led to the now-infamous smoke shop raid in 2003. Target 12 has discovered some retailers will go to great lengths to pocket the tax money instead of paying it. Acting on a tip, we sent a producer into Richmond News in downtown Providence to buy a pack of Marlboro 100’s.

Our producer came out with the pack of cigarettes with part of the tax stamp apparently scratched away.

Alex Diprato confronted the store clerk,” I am Alex with Eyewitness news. How are you doing?”
Clerk: Good.
Alex: Good. We bought this cigarette pack here earlier, and it doesn’t have the RI stamp. The tax stamp. Why is that?
Clerk: I don’t know I am just helping this guy.

The tax stamp should be clearly visible on every pack. Its how the state makes sure the cigarette tax is paid. At Downtown Variety we bought another pack of Marlboro 100’s. Again, the stamp apparently scratched off.

Alex Diprato asks, “Are you aware all cigarettes sold in RI must have the tax stamp? This one is scratched out.”
Clerk # 2 responds, “I don’t know about it. I don’t know about it. I am just helping my friend.”

The clerk said he didn’t know why. But when we asked to see another pack of cigarettes. The clerk was quick to give us some Marlboro 100’s with a Rhode Island stamp.

Alex Diprato: Is there another pack we can see? This one has the stamp. Why doesn’t this one?
Clerk #2: I don’t know.

We showed the cigarettes to David Sullivan at the Division of Taxation.
Sullivan says, “It is pretty prevalent in the state.”

Sullivan says dishonest retailers often buy cigarettes from Virginia where the tax is just 30 cents, then scratch the Virginia name away and sell the cigarettes at Rhode Island prices, pocketing more than 2 bucks a pack. Virginia’s stamp is almost identical to Rhode Island’s.

What it looks like happened to us, is that it was a stamp from another state, it could be Virginia since the color is the same, then scratched off the name of the state so you couldn’t quickly identify that it was a Virginia tax stamp and they were selling it in Rhode Island probably illegally.

With our findings the Target 12 Investigators went to back Richmond News to confront the owner. But, he was not interested in talking to us.

Alex Diprato asks, “Why doesn’t this have the tax stamp?”
The store owner responded, “I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t know what you are talking about. I wasn’t here.”
Alex Diprato: Are you selling cigarettes without stamps?
Owner: Don’t play around with me.

The owner ordered us out of the store refusing to answer any questions. We’ve learned Rhode Island is in the midst of changing its tax stamp to make it more unique.

Alex Diprato asks, “This is ripping off the state?”
Dan Sullivan: Correct it is illegal and its contraband cigarettes, they are not paying the taxes they should on the cigarettes.

Eyewitness News also tried, but was unable to reach the owner of Downtown Variety. A state investigator visited 750 retailers last year, seizing cigarettes and making more than a dozen arrests. No criminal charges have ever been lodged against the two stores we visited.

Source: Wpri

Japan Tobacco Inc., the world’s third-largest publicly traded cigarette maker, forecast profit will fall 19 percent this year as fewer people smoke in its home market and currency movements hurt its international earnings.

Net income is forecast to be 100 billion yen ($1 billion) in the 12 months ending March 2010 from 123.4 billion yen last year, the company said in a statement to Tokyo’s stock exchange today. That compares with the 163 billion yen median estimate of 13 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

The maker of Camel and Mild Seven cigarettes is losing sales in Japan as the smoking rate falls and authorities introduce tighter tobacco controls. Earnings from surging overseas cigarette sales, helped by the 2007 takeover of U.K.- based Gallaher Group Plc, are being blunted by the strengthening of the yen against other currencies.

“The tobacco market in Japan has been experiencing a decline in total demand due to various factors including an ageing society, increased health consciousness and stricter smoking regulations,” the company said in a statement today. “The company expects intensified competition in the Japanese market.”

Japan Tobacco said today it would close two factories this fiscal year and a third by March 2011 as demand wanes.

The company’s Japanese tobacco sales fell 4.8 percent to 3.2 trillion yen, including tax, last year. The percentage of Japanese men who smoke has fallen by half over the past 40 years to about 40 percent.

Overseas Sales

Overseas tobacco revenue rose 18 percent to 3.12 trillion yen in the year to December on higher sales of Winston and Camel cigarettes in counties including Russia, Italy and Spain.

Growth in overseas sales was blunted by gains in the yen, which gained 23 percent last year, the best performer among the 16 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg.

Japan’s health ministry last month said it’s considering new smoking bans after public broadcaster NHK reported restrictions would be increased at hospitals, schools and government offices.

Japan Tobacco has said it supports designated smoking areas in hospitals and schools where possible, rather than outright smoking bans.

In December, the government abandoned a plan to raise tobacco taxes after opposition from some lawmakers and a campaign by Japan Tobacco, which argued it would destroy the nation’s tobacco industry.

Japan Tobacco, which is 50 percent government-owned, is the biggest traded cigarette maker after Altria Group Inc. and British American Tobacco Plc.

Source: Bloomberg

Supporters and opponents of a statewide smoking ban squared off Tuesday over whether the proposed law is a vital public-health safeguard or an affront to the rights of business and property owners.

Both sides packed a hearing Tuesday evening before the Texas House Committee on State Affairs to debate the bill, which would ban smoking in nearly all indoor public places.

“It is about more government control in our businesses and our personal lives,” said Scott Camarata, owner of Cafe Marizon in Amarillo, who spoke strongly against the measure. “We need to wake up and see what’s happening in our state and our country.”

But college student Krista Knight, 22, of College Station countered that she went to work last year at a sports bar where people smoked and soon noticed an unusual shortness of breath when she jogged.

She said that although smoking was a personal choice for others, she was forced to face the health risks. Like many students, she said, she had class during the day and had to work at night, when few jobs are available besides bar and restaurant work.

“Unfortunately, I did not have any other options,” she said.

College Station enacted a smoking ordinance this year, and her breathing has returned to normal, she said.

‘The clock is ticking’

Earlier Tuesday, supporters of the ban ratcheted up pressure on lawmakers to vote on the legislation by delivering almost 10,000 petition signatures to the Capitol.

“The clock is ticking,” said Cass Wheeler, a retired CEO of the American Heart Association who represents the group Smoke-Free Texas. “We are here to remind Texas lawmakers that Texans want a smoke-free state.”

Two bills — Senate Bill 544 and House Bill 5 — propose the ban. Both remain in committee.

Some cities, including Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas, already have ordinances that ban smoking in some or most public places.

However, some business owners complain that local bans create an unfair patchwork of laws, infringe on civil liberties and drive smoking customers elsewhere.

The Texas Restaurant Association’s board of directors has supported the statewide ban, saying it would level the playing field.

Before the committee hearing, Flower Mound Mayor Jody Smith stood with Wheeler outside the Senate chamber at a news conference calling on the House and Senate committees to send the bills to the floor for votes.

Flower Mound adopted a local smoking ban that took effect Jan. 1, and she said the outcome should give lawmakers the “strength to pass these bills” even though they have detractors.

Many Flower Mound businesses that initially resisted the ban have changed their minds and “now are calling our office to say, ‘Thank you, my business is thriving,’ ” Smith said.

Twenty-five other states have already enacted statewide smoking bans, Wheeler said.

Smoke-Free America said it took a poll in January that found that 68 percent of Texans support a statewide ban.

Property-rights concern

Some lawmakers expressed reservation about the legislation. During Tuesday’s hearing, Wheeler called suggestions that the ban would destroy businesses a myth.

Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth and owner of the Railhead Smokehouse, abruptly asked whether Wheeler would be surprised to know that his business fell 15 percent after Fort Worth enacted its smoking ordinance.

“Yes, I would,” Wheeler said.

“Well, it did,” Geren responded.

Afterward, Geren said he would not vote for the measure.

“It’s a property-rights issue for me,” he said.

Criminal Intelligence Group

Tackling tobacco smuggling is one of the top priorities for HMRC’s new Criminal Intelligence Group (CIG). Its tasking and coordination function
provides tobacco intelligence to support interventions against criminal activity and frontier threats. CIG includes:
• National Humint Centre (NHC), which records all intelligence from human
sources: this captures information on all aspects of tobacco smuggling for
assessment – strategically, tactically and for operational purposes.
• National Co-ordination Unit (NCU), which provides 24/7 support,
disseminating tobacco-specific intelligence to operational teams within
both HMRC and UKBA.

Intelligence Management Unit

From October 2008, a new HMRC Intelligence Management Unit is being set up which will manage intelligence from a number of sources including the Customs Hotline and Tax Evasion Hotline. This will allow us to build a critical mass of tobacco intelligence and improve our handling and dissemination of material.

Tobacco Tobacco Expertise

The Tobacco CoE is the largest of all HMRC’s commodity CoEs. Its Centre of responsibilities include liaison with the tobacco manufacturers, including in relation to the Supply Chain Control legislation.The Tobacco CoE is the largest of all HMRC’s commodity CoEs. Its Centre of responsibilities include liaison with the tobacco manufacturers, including in Expertise (CoE) relation to the Supply Chain Control legislation.

Intelligence Analysis

The consolidation of HMRC’s intelligence analysis capability into a national, flexible, multi-functional resource has seen the addition of a ‘Futures’ analysis capability, using analytical methods and approaches recognised across industry, Government and academia.

Customs Hotline Online

Our intelligence gathering capability has recently been extended through the introduction of a new secure online webpage which is available to members of the public both at home and abroad to report suspicious activity in relation to tobacco smuggling. Online reporting can be found at: www.hmrc.gov.uk/customs-hotline/ .

A Pfizer promotional campaign for the controversial drug Chantix – which includes financing a course for doctors through the University of Wisconsin-Madison – has helped the drug dominate the prescription smoking-treatment market while burying mention of its serious side effects.

Chantix now accounts for 90% of smoking cessation prescriptions, even though the Food and Drug Administration has been investigating the drug for a rash of serious side effects, such as suicidal behavior and blackouts.

None of the side effects are mentioned in the UW continuing education online course, which is paid for by Pfizer. The course directly mentions only Chantix as a first-line treatment, even though the drug is one of seven first-line treatments, according to national guidelines.

Further, organizations such as the Department of Veterans Affairs, say Chantix should not be considered as a first-line treatment.

Last May, the VA’s pharmacy benefits management services raised concerns about the drug’s side effects. That followed the Federal Aviation Administration’s ban on the drug for pilots and air traffic controllers.

And unlike most drugs that are advertised to consumers and that list side effects, Pfizer’s “My Time to Quit” ads do not mention any of those problems. One recent ad doesn’t even mention Chantix by name.

“I suspect that it is a way to avoid having to address head-on that this product has some potentially very serious side effects,” said Dominick Frosch, an assistant professor of medicine in the UCLA Department of Medicine.

Earlier ads run by Pfizer have mentioned the drug’s side effects.

Frosch noted that there are several alternative treatments for quitting smoking, including five nicotine-based products – like the patch or gum.

Would smokers rather use one of those products “or a drug that might make me suicidal?” he asked. “I think it’s a no-brainer.”

Pfizer defends product

Sally Beatty, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, said Chantix is a highly effective treatment, resulting in 22% of smokers abstaining one year after treatment, compared with 9% of those who got a placebo. She noted that smoking is responsible for 438,000 deaths a year in the U.S.

Beatty said the goal of the “My Time to Quit” campaign is to help people quit smoking.

She said the idea is to provide information about nicotine addiction and reinforce the value of talking to a doctor about setting up a plan to quit smoking.

Pfizer’s grant to UW is unrestricted and it has no role in the course content, she said.

She said Pfizer communicates all relevant information about the safe use of the drug to doctors and patients in numerous ways, including on the drug’s package label.

“When considering the use of Chantix (varenicline) for their patients, health care providers should discuss the risks of smoking, the health benefits of quitting and the product’s efficacy and safety profile,” Beatty said. “Pfizer believes the benefits of Chantix outweigh its risks.”

UW officials said doctors do not take the class expecting that it is the equivalent of “Smoking Cessation 101.” They use such courses to fill in gaps, not to learn a subject comprehensively for the first time, according to a statement from the communications office of the UW School of Medicine and Public Health.

And there are links that can be clicked on that will take doctors to the national guidelines that address all the first-line treatments and issues such as side effects.

“Learners understand how the course is designed,” the statement says.

Linking to the guidelines is not required to obtain credit for the course.

Public targeted directly

The UW course and the Pfizer’s “My Time to Quit” ads are examples of two emerging trends in medicine: Dramatic growth in spending by drug companies to advertise directly to consumers, as well as drug company funding of doctor education courses that promote drugs made by those companies.

The typical American consumer now sees about 16 hours of prescription drug television ads each year.

In 2005, $4.2 billion was spent on such ads, compared with $1.1 billion in 1997.

At the same time, drug company funding of continuing medical education courses for doctors increased from $302 million in 1998 to $1.2 billion in 2006.

Pfizer pays for UW course

UW’s smoking cessation course is being paid for as part of a $3.5 million grant from Pfizer. So far, about 140 learners, including about 100 doctors, have taken the course.

At UW, drug companies spend about $13 million a year to fund its doctor education courses, and the university receives about 27%, or nearly $3 million of that money. The rest goes to other entities such as the private firms that put together the course materials.

Steven Teplinsky, a 45-year-old Milwaukee native now living in Baltimore, said he took Chantix two years ago. Teplinsky, who has schizophrenia, said he stopped smoking for about five weeks and then got uncomfortable and anxious. He said he thought he might have to go into the hospital.

But after going off the drug and starting to smoke again, he stabilized, he said.

He said he would never go on the drug again. “My mental health is so important.”

On the other hand, Crystal Goodwill, 30, and her husband, Anthony, 30, went on the drug about a year ago and had no significant problems, she said.

Goodwill, who works as a financial assistant at the Medical College of Wisconsin, was prescribed the drug by Ileen Gilbert, who directs the smoking cessation program at Froedtert Hospital.

She said she had night terrors on one occasion, but she and her husband have continued to abstain from smoking, even after going off the drug. They took it for three months.

“I had a great experience with it,” said Goodwill, who tried other methods to quit but was unsuccessful.

It should not be a surprise that Pfizer has been able to maintain a strong market share for Chantix despite all its problems, said Michael Oldani, a former Pfizer drug representative who now works as an assistant professor of medical anthropology sociology at UW-Whitewater.

From doctor education courses and television ads that don’t discuss the drug’s side effects, to an army of drug reps and medical experts who are able to spin information about the drug, it’s classic drug marketing, said Oldani, who writes about pharmaceuticals and culture.

“You need experts to be selling the drug, reps doing damage control and medical consumers requesting it by name,” he said. “They have mastered the way to maintain market share.”

Both the consumer ads and the doctor education courses often start within two years of when the FDA approves a new drug.

Effects often unforeseen

That’s also when problems with unforeseen side effects often occur.

Clinical trials of a drug often exclude large numbers of people with various conditions. The clinical trials of Chantix excluded people with mental disorders along with many other conditions.

Just last month, a new FDA analysis of Chantix published in JAMA showed there were 153 cases of suicidal thoughts or suicidal behavior among users of the drug between May 2006, when it was approved, and November 2007.

And those cases likely represent only a fraction of the actual number, the FDA says.

No link was found between suicide and several nicotine skin patch products.

The JAMA report noted that in the first quarter of 2008, Chantix accounted for more serious injuries (1,001) than the top 10 best-selling drugs combined (837).

Nevertheless, in 2008, its sales were $525 million, which amounted to about 90% of both dispensed prescriptions and total dollars, according to data supplied by IMS Health.

Source: Jsonline