U.S. regulators are working to lift the smokescreen clouding the ingredients used in cigarettes and other tobacco products.

In June, tobacco companies must tell the Food and Drug Administration their formulas for the first time, just as drugmakers have for decades. Manufacturers also will have to turn over any studies they’ve done on the effects of the ingredients.

It’s an early step for an agency just starting to flex muscles granted by a law that took effect last June that gives it broad power to regulate tobacco far beyond the warnings now on packs, short of banning it outright.

Companies have long acknowledged using cocoa, coffee, menthol and other additives to make tobacco taste better. The new information will help the FDA determine which ingredients might also make tobacco more harmful or addictive. It will also use the data to develop standards for tobacco products and could ban some ingredients or combinations.

“Tobacco products today are really the only human-consumed product that we don’t know what’s in them,” said Lawrence R. Deyton, the director of the Food and Drug Administration’s new Center for Tobacco Products and a physician.

While the FDA must keep much of the data confidential under trade-secret laws, it will publish a list of harmful and potentially harmful ingredients by June 2011. Under the law, it must be listed by quantity in each brand.

Some tobacco companies have voluntarily listed product ingredients online in recent years but never with the specificity they must give the FDA, said Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

For example, Altria Group Inc., based in Richmond and the parent company of the nation’s largest tobacco maker, Philip Morris USA, has posted general ingredients on its Web site since at least 1999.

Cigarette makers say their products include contain tobacco, water, sugar and flavorings, along with chemicals like diammonium phosphate, a chemical used to improve burn rate and taste, and ammonium hydroxide, used to improve the taste.

Scientific studies suggest those chemicals also could make the body more easily absorb nicotine, the active and addictive component of tobacco.

“Until now, the tobacco companies were free to manipulate their product in ways to maximize sales, no matter the impact on the number of people who died or became addicted,” Myers said. “The manner of disclosure previously made it impossible for the government to make any meaningful assessments.”

About 46 million people in the U.S., or 20.6 percent of the country’s adults smoke cigarettes, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, down from about 24 percent 10 years ago. It also estimates that about 443,000 people in the U.S. die each year from diseases linked to smoking.

Altria has supported what it has called “tough but fair regulation.” But its chief rivals — No. 2 Reynolds American Inc., parent company of R.J. Reynolds, and No. 3 Lorillard — opposed the law.

They said it would lock in Altria’s share of the market because its size gives it more resources to comply with regulations and future limits on marketing under the law. Altria’s brands include Marlboro, which held a 41.9 percent share of the U.S. cigarette market in the third quarter, according to Information Resources Inc.

The American Lung Assn.’s 2009 report: People smoke, close to the same rate as they did last year, and six states do nothing to help Medicaid recipients quit. Funny, that sounds a heck of a lot like some of the 2008 conclusions

.Yawn-worthy as it is, there are some highlights:

– The FDA can now regulate tobacco products.
– Congress passed a 62-cent hike in the federal cigarette tax.
– Forty states (plus the District of Columbia) received an “F” for their prevention and control programs.

Also, it’s worrisome that in these rough economic times, states are leaning on tobacco taxes while cutting back on tobacco prevention programs. Obviously, the states are more concerned about their bottom lines than about your health. That part may be up to you.

If you’re looking for help quitting yourself, check out the National Cancer Institute’s website, Smoke Free.
By Amina Khan

STOCKTON – San Joaquin County and its cities aren’t cutting it in the eyes of the American Lung Association in California when it comes to enacting tobacco control laws that promote smoke-free rental housing and outdoor air, and reduced tobacco sales.

For 2009, the clean-air group assigned straight F’s in its third annual State of Tobacco Control Report Card in the overall category to the county, Stockton, Lodi, Manteca, Tracy and all the other cities in the county.

Other California cities – most notably Richmond and Albany in the East Bay and Calabasas in Southern California – improved markedly by earning A’s after implementing strong tobacco-control ordinances. San Joaquin County and its cities didn’t budge from last year’s abysmal report card, according to the Lung Association.

“We know that Stockton can do it; we know that San Joaquin County can raise their grades. It’s just a matter of putting it on their list of priorities, and the American Lung Association is here to help,” said the group’s Paul Knepprath, vice president for advocacy and health initiatives.

Knepprath noted that Stockton was one of the first cities statewide to adopt an ordinance several years ago calling for smoke-free entry ways at private businesses.

“Unfortunately, Stockton has not moved aggressively to pass anything since that time. Our message is that Stockton and other cities can pick up the pace and provide greater protection for their citizens,” Knepprath said, noting that it was last year’s poor report card for Richmond that specifically motivated that city to take concrete action, most notably by adopting one of the nation’s strongest ordinances restricting smoking at multiunit housing complexes.

San Joaquin County’s STOPP Coalition – the acronym stands for Smoking and Tobacco Outreach Prevention Project – meets regularly and has been working with individual rental property managers and owners to make their complexes smoke-free. It also has prepared an ordinance that will be reviewed by the Stockton City Council’s legislative subcommittee in March that would ban the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies.

“It seems very contradictory to sell a product that is known to be harmful in a business with a licensed health care professional,” coalition co-chairman Ken Davis said. Davis, an instructor at Humphreys College and a longtime Lodi Unified trustee, said he expects the full council to consider the ordinance by June.

As for the poor report card, Davis accepted it “as a call to action. Hopefully by midyear we will have our ordinance done and move on with the work directed at multiunit housing. I personally lost family members to smoking, so I have a vested interest in it.”
By Joe Goldeen
January 13, 2010

While a number of recent studies suggest that smoking bans cut down on heart attacks, critics argue that the data they rely on have been skewed or misinterpreted.

“It’s never a true reflective sample,” says Bill Hannegan, director of Keep St. Louis Free, which fights to protect the freedom and property rights of St. Louisians. “They do studies looking at communities where heart attack rates fell when bans were imposed, but we always ask, ‘Why not do a national study? Why single out a community like Bowling Green, Kentucky?’ If you looked at every place, you would see that smoking bans don’t really have that effect.”

Hannegan cites a countervailing study by the National Bureau of Economic Research that found that heart attack rates were just as likely to increase after the imposition of smoking bans.

“What this study shows is that smoking bans do not reduce heart attacks in communities,” Hannegan summarizes. “What it also shows is that anti-smoking groups or tobacco-control groups have been cherry-picking cities to try and prove that smoking bans cause heart attack rates to fall.”

Keep St. Louis Free has protected the freedom and property rights of St. Louis business owners against smoking bans and other governmental usurpations for the past four years.

“We made sure that lawmakers in St. Louis were aware of all the studies,” Hannegan emphasizes. “What happened with smoking is that tobacco companies no longer contest any of these claims or fight the anti-smoking groups, so the only people fighting are private citizens, and we don’t have the resources that Big Tobacco has.”

Smoking bans, Hannegan believes, violate the rights and personal freedoms of American citizens and businessmen.

“I do believe that the business owner has the right to have a legal product on his property, if he is willing and able to take measures to reduce whatever health concerns there are to the greatest extent possible,” he affirms. “Business owners are willing to put in fans and ventilation and filtration and are acting in good faith, but public officials are not responding to this.”

Hannegan worries that the public acceptance of smoking bans could lead to other restrictions on our freedoms.

“If this was just about smoking, it wouldn’t be as great a concern, but what really concerns me is when the ends start to justify the means,” he explains. “Particularly when a group can be scapegoated using a manipulated science. The same thing being used against smokers can be used against other people later on and that should be of concern.”

When France outlawed smoking in public places three years ago, residents took the news remarkably — almost shockingly — well. Almost overnight, cigarettes vanished from offices, restaurants, cafés and train stations as the French dutifully took their glowing butts outside — the only place where smoking was still permitted. But this being France, a backlash was almost certainly inevitable. According to a report released on Dec. 17 by an anti-smoking group, the initial obeisance of French smokers has now given way to people increasingly flaunting the law by lighting up indoors.

The Non-Smokers’ Rights (NSR) association says it has collected data and evidence showing that the ban on smoking in the workplace is currently being violated far more than it was when the law came into effect in 2007. Studies show that complaints by people of exposure to second-hand smoke at work, which dropped from nearly 43% in 2006 to just 9% the following year, has now gone back up to 21%, according to NSR. The reason? Widespread government enforcement of the law never materialized as expected, leaving employers and workers less worried about being fined nearly $200 per infraction. Some employees now light up at their desks or by the coffee machine instead of joining their shivering colleagues outside, and many bosses turn a blind eye to it.

“The clear lack of inspection or punishment has inspired a small minority of smokers to ignore the ban — a lead that a growing number of their co-workers are deciding to follow,” says Rémi Parola, a NSR official. “The law was effective in getting people to accept non-smoking as the legal and social norm, and that’s now being slowly eroded.”

And it’s not just happening at work. NSR says non-enforcement is giving defiant smokers the courage to light up in other public areas. Some smokers now routinely puff away in bars or cafés and self-policing owners and managers are often hesitant to tell them to stop out of fear they’ll anger paying clients. Worse still, NSR says, are the enclosed terraces proliferating outside cafes and restaurants across France. The temporary glass or plastic structures were initially set up to keep customers warm so they can enjoy an “outside” café experience in chilly weather. But when smokers were forced outside, these terraces became de facto smoking zones that other patrons now have to cross to get indoors. NSR contends that the smoke also drifts inside — it says it has conducted tests showing that the air in establishments with covered smoking terraces is three times as toxic as in restaurants and cafés without them.

Anecdotal evidence also abounds that French smokers are pushing back in ways that they previously didn’t dare. On some French train lines — all of which are officially non-smoking — smokers frequently take over certain cars, thus far escaping punishment. Butts are also turning up in greater numbers in Paris’ Metro. “I’m not bothering anyone, and if I am, they can go to another part of the platform,” says a man who identified himself only as Adel as he smoked in the Etienne Marcel station recently. “If I see a Metro official, cop or someone who looks like they’ll be a real pain, I won’t light up. But otherwise, why shouldn’t I smoke in the Metro when I want to and can get away with it? Especially because there are far worse smells in here than smoke!”

Down the street from the station, the manager of a plastic-enclosed caféterrace similarly rationalized bending the rules. “This is outside, and it’s the only place where smokers are allowed, so it’s all legal,” says the man, who, perhaps aware that his enclosed smoking terrace is not actually kosher, requested that neither his name nor the name of his establishment be identified. “We have to live together, and this is one compromise to make that happen. Do you see anyone complaining?”

Not yet, perhaps. But one look at the countless smokers bundled up outside offices in Paris suggests that the transgressors are still a relatively rare exception to the rule. If smokers become bolder about lighting up indoors, however, non-smokers may begin demanding greater action from authorities. Even Parola acknowledges that second-hand smoke levels have vastly improved since the ban went into effect, saying his group’s current campaign is only aimed at improving enforcement enough to prevent a gradual return to 2006 habits.

To ensure that the pro-smoking movement doesn’t gain any more ground, authorities may have to do just that. Even though there are costs associated with enforcement, the government will probably still come out ahead —officials estimate that the state spends about $15 billion a year treating smoking-related illnesses. Stamping out a few butts could amount to very little in comparison.

By Bruce Crumley
Paris , Dec. 26, 2009

LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Legislature passed a long-delayed smoking ban Thursday, with exceptions for three Detroit casinos that have to compete with tribal casinos not affected by the ban.

The Democrat-led House agreed Thursday afternoon to slight changes made by the Republican-led Senate earlier in the day. The bill now goes to Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has said she’ll sign it.

The ban would take effect in May 2010. It applies to all bars, restaurants and work places, except for the Detroit casinos, cigar bars, tobacco specialty stores, home offices and motor vehicles.

The Senate approved a ban with no exceptions last year, but that bill failed in the House, which wanted the exceptions for the Detroit casinos. The House in May passed the bill adopted Thursday by the Senate.

With Granholm’s signature, Michigan would become the 38th state to limit smoking in public places such as government buildings and bars and restaurants, according to Sen. Ray Basham, D-Taylor, who has kept alive the push for a statewide smoking ban. He favors a total ban, but was satisfied with the progress so far.

“We’ve moved the ball down the court, and even scored a basket,” he said of Thursday’s vote. “We haven’t scored a three-pointer.”

Sen. Tupac Hunter, D-Detroit, also wanted casinos included in the ban but was pleased with the Senate vote.

“It will be a great day in this state when we are totally, 100 percent smoke free … (but) I’m very proud of what we’ve done today,” he said.

Several senators, including Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester, said they objected to the ban because it intruded on decisions bar and restaurant owners should make based on their customers’ desires.

“This is a blatant overreach by government,” Bishop said.

Among nearby states, only Indiana doesn’t have some type of smoking ban in place. Michigan lawmakers have been trying for more than a decade to pass a ban.

Some residents remain opposed to it, including Don Doze, 54, who was eating Thursday in the smoking section of a Big Boy restaurant in Detroit.

“I want to enjoy my food or drink, and enjoy my cigarette,” said Doze, a Detroit retiree who has smoked for decades. “I don’t want to walk away from my table to go outside and smoke.”

Heaven White, 35, of Detroit, who was sitting in the nonsmoking section of the same restaurant, said a ban on smoking in restaurants and the workplace is good. Still, she said smoking should be allowed in bars.

“Smoking goes with drinking,” White said. “That’s the place you go to be a bad girl, a bad boy.”

The House passed the smoking ban by a 75-30 vote Thursday. Thursday’s Senate vote was 24-13; one senator was absent.

Sen. Jim Barcia of Bay City was the only Democrat to oppose the ban in the Senate. Republicans voting against the ban were Jason Allen of Traverse City, Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop of Rochester, Cameron Brown of Sturgis, Alan Cropsey of DeWitt, Valde Garcia of Howell, Jud Gilbert of Algonac, Mark Jansen of Grand Rapids, Wayne Kuipers of Holland, Randy Richardville of Monroe, Alan Sanborn of Richmond, Tony Stamas of Midland and Gerald Van Woerkom of Norton Shores.

Republican Bill Hardiman of Kentwood was absent.

Backers of a statewide smoking ban say they expect to be outspent by opponents in what’s expected to be a hard-fought campaign after deciding Thursday not to appeal a judge’s ruling. The decision makes the prospect of a November vote more likely.

However, Attorney General Marty Jackley says he and Secretary of State Chris Nelson will meet today to discuss a possible appeal. A decision is likely within a week.

Jackley said the American Cancer Society’s decision not to appeal “is certainly a consideration” as he and Nelson decide the state’s course.

The latest development came Thursday when the American Cancer Society decided not to appeal Circuit Court Judge Kathleen Trandahl’s ruling that opponents of the smoking ban passed by the Legislature and signed into law in March had secured enough valid petition signatures to allow voters to decide the matter next November.

If, as Don Rose suggests, the state follows the cancer society’s lead and decides not to appeal, the 2010 referendum will follow. Opponents of the ban such as Rose say this is what they’ve wanted all along. Rose owns Shenanigan’s Pub, is a district director of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota and was a key organizer of the referendum petition drive that ended up before Trandahl after the Cancer Society challenged the validity of thousands of signatures.

“A vote of the people is what they should have done in the first place,” Rose said.

“Our deal was we always wanted to be able to let the people vote,” added Mark O’Neill, president of the Licensed Beverage Dealers of South Dakota.

The Deadwood Gaming Association is another member of the coalition opposing the smoking ban. Ken Gienger is president of the group and general manager of Deadwood’s Celebrity Hotel.

“When we talk to customers, they say that’s all they wanted, a chance to vote on this issue,” Gienger said.

Mike Trucano, a Deadwood business owner who in 1988 helped lead the successful referendum that allowed gaming in Deadwood, also is a smoking ban referendum organizer. He said “win lose or draw, this is America. There is nothing more sacred than the right to vote on an issue. I think it is wise of the Cancer Society to not go forward. I’m a little disappointed in them taking the steps they’ve taken until now.”
The Cancer Society decided against an appeal to focus on winning a ballot measure, according to Jennifer Stalley, the society’s government relations director.

“We didn’t enter into the lawsuit lightly. We didn’t enter into the decision not to appeal lightly,” she said. “But at the end of the day, the judge has ruled, and we’ll abide by that decision.”

Personal liberty

In the Silver Moon bar, where the texture and tang of cigarette smoke overpowers oxygen in the air, the prospect of smoking being banned is difficult to comprehend.

“Ninety percent of people in here smoke. If they can’t smoke, they won’t be back,” said Roger Cash, tending a cigarette over an ash tray.

“If somebody smokes, they should be able to smoke in a public place,” Marlon Hogan says.

The intrusion on personal liberty a smoking ban represents is a bigger issue here than the ongoing legal and political process that is bringing the state closer to the day smoking might not be allowed in bars, restaurants and casinos.

Mark Weets suggests smoking ought to be a property right. He, Cash and Marlon and Tonya Hogan predict places such as their local haunt will lose business if smoking is banned.

“I wouldn’t come to the bars as much,” she said.

Lost bar business will ultimately mean less tax revenue for the state, Cash says.

“Then they’ll raise taxes. I’m tired of it,” he said.

“They’re taking away all our other rights. They might as well take this too,” Tonya Hogan said.

Weets finally does give some consideration to the drawn-out process of deciding the ban’s fate.

“I wish I knew the answer,” he said, absently holding a smoldering cigarette. “I guess it’s good it’s dragging on.

“If the answer is what I think it’s going to be, it’s not the one I want.”

Volatile history

Referendums have a volatile history in South Dakota. Bids to ban video lottery and abortion have bitterly divided the state.

“Our goal is to be civil and understanding. I certainly expect this to be a South Dakota nice-type campaign,” Stalley said. O’Neill agrees.

“I don’t think it’s going to be that galvanized, that emotional,” he said.

Others predict a hotter race.

“Absolutely. Absolutely,” Rose insisted. “People all over are going to try to tell you what’s good and bad.”

Bar and casino owners will be energized even more by economic studies from other states with smoking bans that show bar or casino business dropped 30 percent, he says. Rose predicts that fear will ensure the smoking ban coalition has plenty of money to mount a referendum campaign.

“I’m certainly going to put money into it like the other bars will,” he said. “I know I can’t take a 30 percent hit.”

Stalley expects to be outspent but says the Cancer Society will rely on strong grassroots support from a majority of South Dakotans who want to see smoking banned in public places.

She also suggests the issue will become entangled with gubernatorial and legislative races.

“I think all the candidates are going to be asked to respond to it from their voters,” she said. “The Legislature approved this law, and the people who supported legislators who put this law in place will ask questions of those who didn’t.”

Stalley and smoking ban opponents agree the referendum campaign will not begin until next year.

“We wanted to get over this hurdle first before we discussed the campaign,” Gienger said of the potential appeals. The coalition of smoking ban opponents is not even expected to meet before next year, he says.

“I don’t think South Dakota wants to hear about this issue for the next 12 straight months,” Stalley added.

Rose says it won’t get going until after the legislative session. He’s watching to see whether the Legislature when it meets early next year imposes new taxes on things such as video lottery. That could affect the strategy of a smoking ban referendum campaign, he says.

By Peter Harriman, November 20, 2009
Reach reporter Peter Harriman at 575-3615.

Cigarette smoking rose slightly in 2008 for the first time in almost 15 years, dashing health officials’ hopes that the U.S. smoking rate had moved permanently below 20 percent.

A little under 21 percent of Americans were current cigarette smokers, according to a 2008 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That’s up slightly from the year before, when 19.8 percent said they were smoking. It also is the first increase in adult smoking since 1994, experts noted.

The increase was so small, it could be just a blip, so health officials and experts say smoking prevalence is flat, not rising. But they are unhappy.

“Clearly, we’ve hit a wall in reducing adult smoking,” said Vince Willmore, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a Washington-based research and advocacy organization.

There’s a general perception that smoking is a dying public health danger. Feeding that perception are indoor smoking laws, higher cigarette taxes and Congress’s recent decision to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco.

But health officials believe gains have been undermined by cuts in state tobacco control campaigns. Also, the tobacco industry has been discounting cigarettes to offset tax increases and keep smokes affordable, Willmore said, citing tobacco industry sales data.

The adult smoking rate has been dropping, in starts and stops, since the mid-1960s when roughly two of every five U.S. adults smoked. Now it’s one in five. However, federal health goals for the year 2010 had called for bringing the rate down to close to one in 10.

Adult smoking hovered at about 21 percent from 2004 to 2006, then dropped a full percentage point in 2007, said Matthew McKenna, director of CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health. The 2007 drop gave CDC officials hope that U.S. smoking was plummeting again. “Now that appears to be a statistical aberration,” McKenna said.

The new figures, published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, come from in-person interviews of nearly 22,000 U.S. adults. CDC also released state-by-state results on smoking from a different survey, conducted by telephone, of more than 400,000 adults. West Virginia and Indiana had the highest smoking rates, at about 26 percent; Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and Tennessee had rates about as high.

Utah had, by far, the lowest smoking rate, with only about 9 percent of Utah residents describing themselves as current smokers.

Many of the states that have the lowest smoking rates are those that have been the most aggressive about indoor smoking laws and about state taxes that drive up the cost of cigarettes, said Thomas Frieden, CDC’s director.

Health officials are optimistic that more and more smokers will be discouraged from lighting up by escalating cigarette taxes, including a 62-cent federal tax that took effect in April. Perhaps the recession will have an impact, too.

“In general, when people have less money, they smoke less,” Frieden said.

By Mike Stobbe
November 17, 2009

Islamabad – Reservations from some quarters notwithstanding, policy-makers, opinion leaders, legislators and tobacco control advocates, reinforced their commitment for effective tobacco control in Pakistan by agreeing to the formulation of a Grand National Alliance for Tobacco Control here on Wednesday.

The alliance was formed at the National Advocacy Conference on Tobacco Control organised by TheNetwork for Consumer Protection in collaboration with the Tobacco Control Cell and the World Health Organization. Director General Health Dr. Rashid Jooma and Yasmeen Rehman, Member National Assembly and Standing Committee on Health and Human Rights, chaired the inaugural and concluding sessions, respectively of the conference.

Responding to a query, the gathering was informed that the modalities of the grand alliance would be notified in due course. The idea is to build synergies by establishing a coordinated response to the tobacco epidemic — a response which involves all relevant ministries, provincial health departments, district implementation committees, the civil society, as well as professional bodies, among others.

Addressing the conference, Dr. Jooma called for creation of volunteer groups to report violations of tobacco control legislation at the federal level. WHO Representative Dr. Khalif Bile termed implementation a major issue. Both Dr. Bile and the Executive Coordinator of TheNetwork, Arif Azad, praised the Ministry of Health for introducing pictorial health warnings with effect from February 2010. The head of the Tobacco Control Cell Shaheen Masud shared the achievements of the Cell and the obstacles being encountered by it on account of lack of funds.

Yasmeen Rehman exhorted the Ministry of Education to include tobacco control in the school curriculum. Moreover, she stressed the need to sensitise parliamentarians to generate a debate on making tobacco control a part of the national health policy and plan.

In the end, a resolution from the platform of Grand National Alliance for Tobacco Control was passed for submission to legislators, appealing to the government to undertake comprehensive tobacco control measures.

A large number of people including representatives of the ministries of railways, tourism, industries and commerce, religious affairs, law and federal board of revenue, health professionals, civil society organisations, legal experts, educationists and media persons attended the conference.

October 29, 2009
By Shahina Maqbool

Palm Beach County Tax Collector Anne Gannon has decided the butt stops here.

She said Wednesday she will no longer hire anyone who has regularly used tobacco products, saying smokers in her office stick taxpayers with paying for rising health-care costs.

Existing smokers among her 240 employees get to keep their jobs, but are being “encouraged” to quit, Gannon said. But they will pay more for health insurance: She plans to increase what those employees pay toward their coverage by as much as 20 percent.

Gannon said her goal is to cut down on rising health insurance costs and to encourage a healthier, more productive working environment.

Taxpayers pay $2.5 million a year toward health insurance for tax collector employees, a cost that rose 45 percent in three years, Gannon said. Job seekers will be required to submit an affidavit indicating they are non-smokers to go along with their job application to be considered for employment, according to the new policy.

“We believe that smoking is the driver of our health care costs. A person who smokes has chosen to do that,” said Gannon, a non-smoker who said both her parents died of smoking-related illnesses. “The public is really paying.”

Critics say Gannon’s new policy infringes on personal liberties. The move is “outright discrimination,” said Sid Dinerstein, chairman of the Republican Party of Palm Beach County.

“If you can pick on people because they smoke, you can pick on people because they eat fatty foods. … You can go down a very long list of telling people how they should live their lives.”

It is well-established that smoking and other uses of tobacco cause cancer, heart disease and lung disease. Cigarette smoking leads to $96 billion a year in health care costs and more than 400,000 deaths annually in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Gannon said she did her legal research before enacting the policy. The Florida Supreme Court in 1995 upheld North Miami’s ban at the time on hiring smokers.

Gannon’s new policy is patterned after other local government and business actions to phase out employee smoking.

Boca Raton doesn’t hire smokers for its police or fire departments or other union positions, and Sarasota County stopped hiring smokers in 2008. Broward County government workers who smoke this year face new surcharges that could add $520 a year to premiums deducted from employees’ pay.

Not hiring smokers is a “positive step” that encourages people to give up smoking, said Brenda Olsen, CEO of The American Lung Association of Florida.

“It is not a constitutional right for people to smoke,” Olsen said.

The Tax Collector’s Office already has an employee-led, voluntary “Biggest Loser” weight-loss program, where teams compete to see which group can lose the most, Gannon said.

Outside of the Tax Collector’s Office, County Commission-controlled departments focus on encouraging voluntary exercise and other health programs, but stop short of smoking surcharges and hiring bans, Human Resources Director Wayne Condry said.

“Where does that stop?” Condry said about the smoker-hiring ban. “What else are you going to decide people shouldn’t be doing?”

Andy Reid can be reached at abreid@SunSentinel.com or 561-228-5504.

Clearing the air
Boca Raton doesn’t hire smokers for its police or fire departments or other union positions. Palm Beach County Tax Collector Anne Gannon, right, has decided her office also will be smoke-free.

Copyright © 2009, Sun-Sentinel

A new federal grant will allow Roswell Park Cancer Institute to examine tobacco control policies across countries to better reduce consumption levels.

The five-year, $11.5 million grant from the National Cancer Institute will support research into how policies differ in effectiveness across countries with varying income levels and cultures.

Lead investigator on the project is K. Michael Cummings, chairman of Roswell’s department of health behavior and an internationally recognized leader in tobacco control.

According to a prepared release, the research builds upon the work started by the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Consortium (ITC Project), which RPCI helped establish in 2002 in an effort to evaluate the impact of tobacco control policies created by a World Health Organization’s treaty focusing on public health: The Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC).

Working from the premise that socio-economic status is a strong predictor of tobacco use, the new study will assess the impact of specific methods of tobacco control policies on tobacco use behaviors.

The project’s ultimate goal is to inform governments about the need to tailor policy interventions to achieve maximum effectiveness. It is the only scientific study to systemically evaluate the impact of the FCTC treaty.

Copyright © September 22, 2009 Bizjournals

Rainier eighth-graders are smoking at nearly three times the state average, and alcohol abuse is more than twice the state rate, according to the Oregon Healthy Teens Survey released last month. Rainier 11th-graders are smoking at more than twice the state rate, but alcohol consumption is below the state average in that age group, the survey said.

“Unfortunately, there’s a significant difference in our numbers (from the state), and they’ve gone up from last year,” Superintendent Michael Carter said Tuesday. “We working to do what we can proactively and offer cessation programs and alternatives. We want to reinforce smart choices.”

According to the survey, 26 percent of Rainier eighth-graders are current smokers compared to 9.9 percent for the state. Among the 11th-graders, 21.5 percent are current smokers compared to 14.9 percent for the state.

The survey, which is given to eighth-graders and 11th-graders in the spring of each school year, is anonymous and voluntary. In 2009, 9,016 eight-graders and 6,684 11th-graders were surveyed from 135 schools across Oregon. At Rainier, 79 eight-graders and 65 11th-graders took the survey.

In addition to survey questions about tobacco and alcohol use, students are asked if they’ve ever felt harassed or unsafe at school, considered suicide, whether they are sexually active and about their eating habits and physical activity.

Carter said, in addition to the alarming tobacco use rates, the school board expressed concern over the number of students who said they had considered suicide in the past 12 months and those who are feeling bullied. More than 22 percent of Rainier eighth-graders said they had considered suicide compared to 18.2 percent in the state, and 13.8 percent 11th-graders said they had considered suicide, just barely up from the 13.5 percent state rate.

“Those really hit us hard,” Carter said. “The board wants to make sure we address all those issues. For example, we’ve already banned cell phone use during class times. We think that will help with the bullying.”

A new elective class may offer more help for students to make healthy choices, Carter said. Sherrie Ford, Columbia County tobacco prevention education program coordinator, said she’s working with students and teachers to help set up part of the curriculum.

“We’ve got students there who want to teach preventive messages to young kids, to work on signage and policy,” Ford said. “It’s great overall prevention messaging for all of the school.”

Ford said the school-based health center, which will open later this month next to the district office at Rainier, also will provide materials for substance abuse, smoking cessation and other health issues.

Carter said Rainier students are going to be reminded that underage tobacco use is not only an unhealthy choice, it’s also illegal.

“The resource officer will give warnings at the beginning of the school year, but after that he’s going to start citing,” Carter said.


Rainier Results

EIGHTH-GRADERS (79 STUDENTS SURVEYED)

Behavior School % State %

Smoked cigarettes one or more days in past 30 days 26.0% 9.9%

Used chewing tobacco, snuff or dip one or more days in past 30 days 18.2% 4.1%

Drank alcohol in past 30 days 47.4% 23.2%

Had 5 or more drinks of alcohol within a couple of hours in past 30 days 29.7% 10.7%

Used marijuana in past 30 days 21.6% 10.6%

Considered suicide in past 12 months 22.7% 18.2%

Felt harassment about weight, clothes, physical characteristics 30.3% 15%

Have had sexual intercourse 35.5% 17.7%

RAINIER 11th-GRADERS (65 STUDENTS SURVEYED)

Behavior School% State%

Smoked cigarettes one or more days in past 30 days 21.5% 14.9%

Used chewing tobacco, snuff or dip one or more days in past 30 days 18.5% 7.4%

Drank alcohol in past 30 days 30.8% 38.3%

Had 5 or more drinks of alcohol within a couple of hours in past 30 days 16.9% 23.4%

Used marijuana in past 30 days 12.5% 21.8%

Considered suicide in past 12 months 13.8% 13.5%

Felt harassment about weight, clothes, physical characteristics 15.4% 8.1%

Have had sexual intercourse 53.8% 48.4%

Source: Spring 2009 Oregon Healthy Teens Survey

On June 22, President Barack Obama signed into law the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, or the FSPTCA. This law grants the FDA permission to control and regulate all tobacco products.

According to the FDA’s Web site, the FDA plans to, by October, prohibit cigarettes from having “candy, fruit or spice flavors as their characterizing flavors.” The FDA is expected to set in more regulations as time passes. Such regulations may include:

By January 2010, tobacco manufacturers and importers are expected to have to submit product information to the FDA.

By April 2010, the FDA plans to reissue a 1996 regulation aimed at reducing tobacco use among minors.

By July of 2010, it is expected that tobacco manufacturers will no longer be able to use the terms “light,” “low” or “mild” without a special order from the FDA. The FDA also plans to revise warning labels on smokeless tobacco products

By October 2012, the FDA plans to strengthen the warning labels on cigarette packs.
In St. Cloud, some businesses rely on the sale of flavored tobacco products.
The Smoke Shop, located on Division Street, is one such shop

The manager of the Smoke Shop, Alex Dodin, said that Djarum cigarettes and Dream cigarettes were going to be banned along with flavored cigarillos as of Sept. 22.

He said he was not sure what else would be taken off the market and said these news laws against flavored tobacco would strongly affect his business.

“What else are they going to smoke after this?” Didon added.

Ezekial Butler, SCSU junior and CA for Stearns Hall, had some opinions on the proposed ban.

He said that he occasionally enjoyed the Dream cigarettes and will stock up before the ban takes hold.

“They [The FDA] have a decent reason to ban flavored cigarettes, but it’s unfair to those who are of age that enjoy them,” Butler said. “Even though I plan on quitting, this new ban is not going to stop me from smoking.”

The new laws that are planned to be put into affect are aimed at decreasing smoking among adolescents, but it may also have consequences for those who sell and those who enjoy smoking tobacco legally.


Copyright © September 14, 2009 Universitychronicle

THE price of alcohol and cigarettes would rise and marketing campaigns aimed at teenagers curbed under a radical blueprint to make Australians healthier.

Poor communities would receive cash incentives or vouchers to buy fresh and nutritious meals under the plan, to be unveiled by the Federal Government.

Damaging levels of salt, sugar and fats in everyday foods would be cut as part of a “health compact” to tackle an obesity epidemic, which it’s estimated costs Australia $58 billion a year.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s hand-picked Preventative Health Taskforce wants an overhaul of booze taxes, including a minimum “floor” tax for alcohol. This would force up the price of many cheaper, popular drinks favoured by teenagers, but could reduce the cost of premium wine.

HOW WOULD YOU CURE OUR HEALTH WOES? Have your say in the comment box below.

It wants a big rise in tobacco excise, saying the average price of a 30-cigarette pack should rise by about $5, to $20.

With alcohol-fuelled street violence a rising concern in the nation’s major cities, the taskforce is pushing a series of tough reforms.

It wants far stricter controls on licensing hours and on the marketing of alcohol.

This includes an effective ban on “inappropriate” alcohol promotion – a move that could hit magazines aimed at teenagers, such as Dolly.

The taskforce mainly consists of public health academics and professionals.

Among other recommendations, it wants retailers to effectively push cigarette promotions “under the counter” in a bid to reduce their attractiveness to teenagers.

Having established the taskforce early last year, the Government will be under pressure to respond positively to the reform blueprint.

But it will also face pressure to avoid tax changes on alcohol and tobacco that disproportionately hit the working poor, which is Labor’s traditional constituency.

The expert group also recommends a “health compact” between the government and the $70 billion food sector, which is aimed at improving the nutritional value of everyday supermarket items.

The new deal would aim to reduce the levels of salt, sugar and fat in popular foods and to build on work already being done to reduce the amount of salt in bread and breakfast cereals.

This would result in everyday items – ranging from cornflakes to the potato chip – become healthier, although the taskforce avoids setting precise targets and time frames.

And in a bid to improve the diets of poor and remote communities, the Government is being urged to make fresh and healthy foods more accessible.

The taskforce is understood to be pushing a range of options, including fresh food “vouchers” and other cash incentives.

It is understood the taskforce’s massive report also canvasses a so-called “fat tax” as a way of reducing Australia’s girth and tackling the obesity epidemic.

The expert panel has outlined a raft of measures that aim to cut the number of people smoking daily, which presently stands at 2.9 million. And it wants to reduce levels of alcohol abuse by 30 per cent within a decade.

Among other reforms, the taskforce supports a ban on alcohol sponsorship of sport.

It’s a controversial recommendation that could cost major football and other sporting codes up to $300 million a year in lost revenue.

Shoppers will also be given access to easy-to-read labelling, helping consumers choose foods that are better for them and low in saturated fats and other nasties.

But the taskforce stops shy of urging the introduction of “traffic light” labelling, which is used overseas and involves using a simple “red, amber and green” code to show the food’s health rating.

PRESTONSBURG — The city council approved a relatively strong ban on smoking in public places Monday night.

After rejecting an exemption for businesses with patrons 18 and older, such as bars, council members voted 5-2 in favor of the ordinance, which will allow smoking in outdoor areas of restaurants and in private clubs.

Recipients of charitable gambling revenues at the local bingo hall weren’t pleased. Mary Stephens, on the board of the Jenny Wiley Summer Theatre, said her organization and others will look for a hall outside the city limits when the smoking ban takes effect Nov. 1.

“With the economy the way it is, it’s too hard to keep it profitable” without smoking, Stephens said. She said she didn’t buy research that shows that smoking bans haven’t affected bingo revenues in other parts of the state.

Scott Lockard, vice president of the Kentucky Public Health Association and director of the Clark County health department, said during the meeting that some bingo games, including those in Clark County, have enjoyed increased revenues because people buy more concessions when they’re not smoking.

Prestonsburg’s ban will be among the stronger ordinances in the state, Lockard said.

“This is the ideal we all shoot for” to protect public health, he said.


Copyright © 2009 Kentucky

The role of media is essential in tobacco control and internationally media has paid a critical role in the passage and implementation of tobacco control laws.

The media served as a bridge between the public and policy-makers allowing the public to bring forward their concerns.

This access has been critical in tobacco control where a chance of profits for the few mean the infliction of disease and death on the many Debra Efroymson, Tobacco Control Advisor, International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease said at a press conference held by the National Authority on Tobacco and Alcohol in Colombo yesterday.

In the David and Goliath power imbalance between health advocates and the tobacco industry the media serves as the equalising weapon that allows David the upper hand she said.

Those campaigning for strong tobacco control laws and policies in country after country including higher taxes and advertising bans, smoke free public places and graphic health warnings rely on the media to bring their concern to the attention of policy makers. The active role of the media has been critical in changing the balance of power so that pro-people rather than pro-industry policies could result, she noted. Despite all these efforts the industry still used the media to trumpet their cause by using corporate social responsibility as an eyewash.

The media therefore must be responsible to ask whether the taxes paid by the industry were more important than the lives taken away by the cigarettes. If it was genuinely interested in people does it grow more trees than the number of trees farmers burn down to grow and cure tobacco.

With the support of media the industry could be curbed and health and wellbeing of the people promoted, she said.


Copyright © 2009 Dailynews

LONDON — British American Tobacco PLC reported Thursday that its first half profit rose 16 percent from a year earlier to 1.45 billion pounds ($2.38 billion) as top brands such as Lucky Strike showed better sales.

Revenue was up 24 percent to 6.78 billion pounds, a 14 percent gain on a constant currency basis, boosted by last year’s acquisitions of Skandinavisk Tobakscompagni of Denmark and Tekel of Turkey.

Group volumes rose 5 per cent; however, excluding acquisitions volumes declined 2 percent, mainly due to falling sales in Russia, Ukraine, Japan and Mexico.

The company reported good volume growth in Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Korea, Uzbekistan, Nigeria and the Gulf Cooperation Council.

Volume of premium brands was down 1 percent excluding acquisitions.

The company raised its interim dividend by 26 percent to 27.9 pence.

BAT’s four “global drive brands” grew by 5 percent, with Dunhill up 8 percent, Lucky Strike up 7 percent and Pall Mall up 10 percent. Kent was 2 percent lower.

BAT has continued to grow, acquiring Tbk (Bentoel), Indonesia’s fourth-largest cigarette maker, in June for 303 million pounds.

Shares in the company closed up 1.3 percent at 1,863 pence on the London Stock Exchange.

WASHINGTON — Pentagon health experts are urging Defense Secretary Robert Gates to ban the use of tobacco by troops and end its sale on military property, a change that could dramatically alter a culture intertwined with smoking.

Jack Smith, head of the Pentagon’s office of clinical and program policy, says he will recommend that Gates adopt proposals by a federal study that cites rising tobacco use and higher costs for the Pentagon and Department of Veterans Affairs as reasons for the ban.

The study by the Institute of Medicine, requested by the VA and Pentagon, calls for a phased-in ban over a period of years, perhaps up to 20. “We’ll certainly be taking that recommendation forward,” Smith says.

A tobacco ban would confront a military culture, the report says, in which “the image of the battle-weary soldier in fatigues and helmet, fighting for his country, has frequently included his lit cigarette.”

Also, the report said, troops worn out by repeated deployments often rely on cigarettes as a “stress reliever.” The study found that tobacco use in the military increased after the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began.

Pentagon spokeswoman Cynthia Smith said the department supports a smoke-free military “and believes it is achievable.” She declined to elaborate on any possible ban.

One in three servicemembers use tobacco, the report says, compared with one in five adult Americans. The heaviest smokers are soldiers and Marines, who have done most of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, the study says. About 37% of soldiers use tobacco and 36% of Marines. Combat veterans are 50% more likely to use tobacco than troops who haven’t seen combat.

Tobacco use costs the Pentagon $846 million a year in medical care and lost productivity, says the report, which used older data. The Department of Veterans Affairs spends up to $6 billion in treatments for tobacco-related illnesses, says the study, which was released late last month.

Along with a phased-in ban, the report recommends requiring new officers and enlisted personnel to be tobacco-free, eliminating tobacco use on military installations, ships and aircraft, expanding treatment programs and eliminating the sale of tobacco on military property. “Any tobacco use while in uniform should be prohibited,” the study says.

The military complicates attempts to curb tobacco use by subsidizing tobacco products for troops who buy them at base exchanges and commissaries, says Kenneth Kizer, a committee member and architect of California’s anti-tobacco program.

Seventy percent of profits from tobacco sales — $88 million in 2005 — pays for recreation and family support programs, the study stays.

Strong leadership could make the military tobacco-free in five to 10 years, Kizer says. President Obama, he says, could set an example for the military by ending his own smoking habit once and for all. Last month, Obama said he is “95% cured” but “there are times when I mess up” and smoke.


Copyright © 2009 Usatoday

While less Oregonians are lighting up than years past, Coos County continues to exceed the state average.  Now, some specialists fear that this trend could breed younger smokers.

According to the Oregon Tobacco Prevention and Education Program, Coos County ranks the fourth highest in tobacco consumption in the state, with roughly 27% of the adult population using tobacco products.

But the addiction starts young, with as much as 14% of 8th graders and 34% of 11th grade students using tobacco in the county.

According to Tobacco Program Coordinator, Stephen Brown, over 90%of all nicotine products are sold to people who started before age 21.

“Most long term smokers begin smoking when they’re 12,13 or 14 years old and if you start at that age, you’re much more likely to become addicted and become a long term smoker,” says Brown.

Brown adds that one of the big misconceptions among the youth is that they think smoking and chewing is far more common then it really is.  In fact, nearly three-quarters of Coos County’s population doesn’t use tobacco.

But despite all the education surrounding the dangers of this product, Brown says the only way to change the status quo is by limiting its public consumption.

“A community as a whole indicates to kids that smoking is not a good behavior and the best way for a community to do that is to not smoke,” says Brown.  “Especially to not some around children and to not smoke in public places.”

To review the Coos County Tobacco Fact Sheet for yourself, you can log onto http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/tobacco/index.shtml
Copyright © 2009 Kcby

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced today that it is seeking public input on the implementation of its historic new authority overseeing tobacco products in the United States. In a Federal Register notice, the agency invites the public to provide information and share views on a wide range of topics, from product content to advertising and marketing. All public comments will be posted online.

“We’re interested in receiving input from across the country as the FDA begins to implement this important new authority intended to reduce the enormous toll of suffering and death caused by tobacco products in the United States,” said Dr. Margaret A. Hamburg, Commissioner of Food and Drugs. “We look forward to the public’s response.”

The Federal Register notice can be viewed at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-15549.pdf.

On Monday, as president Barack Obama prepared to sign a landmark bill that gives the Food and Drug Administration power to regulate the advertising, manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products, a Gallup poll found that a majority of Americans disapprove of the new regulations.

According to the poll, 52 percent of Americans disapprove of the new law, which will give the FDA the power to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, block labels that advertise cigarettes as “low tar” or “light,” and the authority to ban flavorings such as menthol.

The bill also requires tobacco companies to place large graphic warnings on cigarette cartons.

The poll found a higher disapproval rate among smokers (69 percent) and people with lower levels of education, but found that 62 percent of postgraduates approve of the bill.

Copyright © 2009 Rttnews

The federal government may soon have more control over the nation’s smoking habit.

A bill passed by the U.S. House would give the Food and Drug Administration more power to regulate how cigarettes are made and sold. Gone would be outdoor banners in Yakima advertising cigarettes. A store would only be able to advertise inside. Changes may also impact smoking among young people, where the goal is to stop them from lighting up in the first place.

“400-thousand people die every year attributed to tobacco use, and kids are starting to use those products every day, and we just want to do everything we can to prevent that from happening,” says Dan Smith of the American Lung Association office in Yakima.

Congress is sending the bill to President Obama. The president says the bill will make history, and he has promised to sign it.

© Kapptv

As North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr paced the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon, the clerk counted up the votes for his legislation to regulate tobacco someplace other than the Food and Drug Administration.

In the end, his substitute amendment — co-sponsored by North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan — lost by a 36-60 vote.

The Senate is poised to vote Wednesday on another tobacco-related bill — sweeping legislation that would allow the FDA to regulate tobacco, allowing the agency to restrict nicotine and imposing new rules on advertising.
Related Content

* Commentary: Burr a diehard defender of tobacco
* Senate poised to vote on sweeping FDA tobacco rules

More Politics Wire

* Blue Dog Democrats could have major role in shaping health bill
* Democrats’ draft health bill delays GOP confrontation
* Supreme Court clears way for Chrysler’s sale to Fiat
* Supreme Court clears way for Chrysler’s sale to Fiat
* Kennedy hands health care overhaul to Dodd
* McCain deserts Palin again on oil drilling in Arctic refuge

Burr, a Republican, and Hagan, a Democrat, have worked for the past week to delay or derail the FDA regulation bill.

Their amendment would have instead created a new agency to regulate tobacco, with fewer restrictions than the underlying bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid allowed a vote on the Burr/Hagan substitute amendment, but it was never expected to pass.

Burr, of Winston-Salem, and Hagan, of Greensboro, both hail from cities with their own tobacco companies. North Carolina is the top tobacco-growing state in the country.

The federal opposition denies it’s hypocritical to block the government’s alcopops tax hike while proposing a rise in cigarette taxes.

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull’s budget reply speech on Thursday night offered to replace the forecast $1.9 billion in savings that would come from paring back access to the rebate, with a 12.5 per cent increase in the tobacco excise – a tax of three cents per cigarette.

Asked if it was hypocritical to oppose a 70 per cent tax increase on pre-mixed drinks while supporting an increase in tobacco excise, opposition health spokesman Peter Dutton said the coalition’s tax idea was more broadly based.

“If we were suggesting an increase in the tobacco excise on one brand of cigarettes, and not the whole range of tobacco products, that would be a different story,” he told reporters in Canberra on Friday.

Mr Dutton said tobacco companies, which made donations to the Liberal Party, were not happy with the coalition’s proposed excise increase on cigarettes.

“As I understand it, the tobacco companies make donations to both political parties in this country,” Mr Dutton said.

The Rudd government has indicated it will put forward its alcopops legislation again in the Senate, after it was blocked in the upper house in April.

But Mr Dutton believes the government may back down.

“I suspect there’s going to be a shift from the government on the alcopops tax,” he said.

“They understand now their bluff has been called completely in relation to this being a health measure.”

Smoking issues on cruise ships can get very heated, and rarely do you see the opposing sides reach a meaningful point of compromise. So when the cruise lines have to create smoking policies the challenge is to try to please both sides, smoking and non-smoking passengers, at the same time. Not an easy thing to do!

This article will focus on the smoking policies of some of the major U.S.-based cruise lines, and what you can expect will happen once you actually get onboard.

First of all, there is no entirely smoke-free cruise line serving the North American market. While most cruise ships are largely smoke-free, all the cruise lines provide at least some areas for cigarette smokers, and even for pipe and cigar smokers. However, even cruise lines owned by the same parent corporations are not created equal, and some of them are far more restrictive than others.

First of all, no major cruise line permits smoking in any of the dining venues onboard, nor do they allow it in the main show lounge. The famed ocean liner, Cunard’s QE2, was the last ship to have limited smoking sections in certain dining venues onboard, including the Caronia Dining Room. But with the retirement of that vessel an era ended for smoking and all dining venues on all ships today are completely smoke-free.

Other than dining rooms and show theaters the smoking policies are unique to each cruise line. We’ll highlight the policies of some of the major ones as they exist in early 2009. Be forewarned, these policies can and do change at a moment’s notice, and if smoking is a “hot” issue for you, you are best off checking with your cruise line prior to departure to find out the current policies for the specific ship you plan to sail.

Copyright © 2009 Cruisemates

The recession and the biggest federal cigarette tax increase in history – a 62-cents-a-pack hike April 1 – have sent Washington smokers scrambling for ways to quit.

Analysts expect the higher prices to drive cigarette consumption down by about 6.25 percent, leading to an estimated $20.9 million loss in state tax revenue and tobacco settlement money.

The price hike already has caused a boom in the stop-smoking business, and for families of smokers struggling to quit, has increased tension already stretched by the economic slump.

The federal cigarette tax rose to $1.01 a pack April 1, but many manufacturers raised prices in March in response to an expected loss in sales. A pack of premium cigarettes in Washington now costs at least $7, which adds up to more than $2,500 a year for pack-a-day smokers.

In addition to paying the federal tax, Washington’s 800,000 smokers face state taxes of $2.025 a pack, the fifth-highest rate in the country after New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Yvonne Russell is one of the smokers driven to quit by the federal tax hike.

“As soon as I found out prices were increasing again, I said, ‘No more,’ ” fumed Russell, 35, a smoker since she was 18. “It’s just getting ridiculous.”

Russell has three children and takes care of a disabled aunt at her home near the Tacoma Mall. Her husband is a carpenter who feels lucky not to have lost his job in the economic downturn.

Russell said she tried to quit smoking two years ago, the last time the price jumped. Then her resolve slipped and she started up again. The latest tax increase was the last straw, she said.

“It’s like, we can either eat, or smoke,” Russell said. “What’s it going to be?”

For thousands of Washington residents, the answer is to stop smoking.

Managers of the state-sponsored Tobacco Quit Line said calls are running 243 percent higher in April than they were a year ago. The program connects smokers with “quit coaches” and offers at least a two-week supply of nicotine patches or gum (valued at $145) at no charge.

“We’ve had tremendous volume,” said Mary Kate Salley, senior vice president of the Seattle-based company, Free & Clear, which manages the Quit Line.

Last year, in the first three weeks of April, 1,231 people called the Quit Line, Salley said. In the same period this year, the number went up to 4,221.

Business is booming so much that Free & Clear is rapidly increasing its staff, even in the midst of the worst recession in decades, Salley said.

“We’ve increased staffing by about 29 percent,” she said. “We’ve hired 39 quit coaches and 30 registration intake specialists.”

Enrollment in smoking-cessation classes in the state has shown similar increases in the past month.

“We’ve had a flood of calls from people wanting to quit,” said Michael Foley, a spokesman for Group Health Cooperative, which runs stop-smoking clinics in Seattle, Tacoma and Olympia.

“The highest volume of inquiries for assistance in quitting smoking is usually right after New Year’s Day,” Foley said, “but we had 600 people inquire in March, which equals January’s volume.”

REACHING THE THRESHOLD

“There’s a certain number of smokers who will give up many other things in life because of their addiction,” said Dr. Patrick Hogan, a Tacoma neurologist who has been working with addicted smokers since the 1980s.

“But there’s a certain point where there’s a threshold on price, and I think we’re getting close to it – thank goodness.”

Hogan started the Freedom From Tobacco Program at Tacoma’s St. Joseph Hospital in 1992 and has been volunteering his time there nearly every week since. The weekly support sessions are free and open to all.

Lately, Hogan said, he’s been hearing a consistent refrain at the sessions, where attendance has increased from a half dozen or so in the early years to as many as 50.

“People are saying, ‘I’ve finally gotten to the point where I don’t want to give away money that I don’t need to give away,” Hogan said. “Maybe a year ago they still would have adapted one more time, but with the recession, cost is just that extra motivator. They say, ‘Here’s one tax that I can avoid.’”

That’s the way it worked for Paul and Gretchen Stewart, who recently started attending a Group Health smokers’ support group in Tacoma. They were two-pack-a-day smokers until the most recent price increase convinced them to quit.

“I went into a gas station to buy a pack of Marlboros, and it was $7.95,” Gretchen Stewart said. “I told the woman, ‘I can’t believe I’m paying that for cigarettes.’ That’s when I quit. I haven’t bought a pack since.”

If they hadn’t quit, the Stewarts figure they would have been spending $900 a month on cigarettes. That’s money they can no longer afford. They own their own painting company, and the recession has cut deeply into their income.

“We went from a good four or five jobs a month to almost nothing,” Gretchen Stewart said. “When people are wanting to save money, the last thing they want to do is paint their house.”

Trying to quit has been excruciating, Gretchen Stewart said.

“I’ve been smoking for 34 years – since I was 12 – so it’s very hard,” she said. “I was in the hospital in December with pneumonia. I couldn’t breathe, but I still wanted a cigarette. I’ve been pregnant three times and smoked all through all three of them. If you can’t even quit for a child of yours, it’s bad.”

Still, Stewart said she doesn’t think raising taxes is a good way to get people to stop smoking.

“I think it’s cruel,” she said. “You’re taxing the things people have for enjoyment. People should have the right to make their own decision instead of taxing the hell out of it.”

Doing without cigarettes means extra stress, and that can upset family relationships.

Gretchen Stewart said she and her husband tried to quit at the same time two years ago and they finally had to start smoking again to save their marriage.

“We got in a huge fight,” she said. “We were on I-5 and I told him to make a right or a left, I don’t know what it was, but we were just screaming at each other. We don’t usually behave that way.

“I’m looking around saying, ‘Where’s the cigarette?’”

ASSESSING THE IMPACT

Assessing the financial impact of the decline in cigarette sales depends on how you do the arithmetic.

According to the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, the federal tobacco tax increase will prompt 14,800 Washington adults to quit smoking. At a pack a day, the national average for smokers, that’s about $10 million a year in lost tax revenue.

The campaign also estimates the increase will prevent 30,400 kids from becoming adult smokers, which will further reduce the revenue stream.

And fewer smokers means less money from the 1998 Master Tobacco Settlement. Washington gets annual payments as part of the agreement in which the states settled lawsuits against the nation’s major tobacco companies to recover tobacco-related health care costs.

This year, Washington’s share was about $174 million, according to Cameron Comfort, the senior assistant attorney general who advises state policy makers on financial aspects of the settlement.

If the new federal tax cuts the number of Washington smokers by 6.25 percent, as analysts project, that will mean the state will collect about $10.9 million less money from the fund.

On the other hand, the state will save on certain medical costs.

The federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that cigarette smoking is responsible for $193 billion in annual health-related economic losses in the United States.

However, smokers tend to die earlier. The more people who die prematurely from smoking, the less the state has to contribute to expensive elder-care. According to the state Department of Health, about 7,500 people in Washington die every year from tobacco-related diseases.

PAIN IN THE POCKETBOOK

Heidi Henson, co-chairwoman of the tobacco advisory board of Pierce County, said she’s not surprised a rush to quit smoking coincided with the federal tax hike.

“Price always has an significant impact,” she said. “It’s the single most effective way to cut use there is.”

Other antismoking efforts are effective, too, Henson said, including restrictions on where smokers can light up, general psychological messages that put smoking in a negative light and emphasizing health effects.

“The harder it is for people to use tobacco, whether it’s because of price or location or social pressure, the more likely they are to consider quitting,” Henson said.

“If they get dirty looks when they smoke or people make them feel like second-class citizens, it’s not easy for them.”

But Henson and Salley agree nothing works as well as increasing prices.

“When they get hit in the pocket book, that’s when people tend to said, ‘OK, that’s enough,’” Salley said.

Source: Thenewstribune

There is now enough scientific evidence to link both active smoking
and second-hand smoke to breast cancer, according to an international panel convened by
the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, an affiliate of the Dalla Lana School of Public
Health, University of Toronto, with support from the Public Health Agency of Canada.
“Until recently, evidence about the link between breast cancer and tobacco smoke,
although voluminous, was inconclusive. But the Panel’s careful analysis of all available
evidence, particularly recent evidence, led us to conclude that there is persuasive
evidence of risk,” said Neil Collishaw, Chair of the Panel. “An estimated 80 to 90 per
cent of women have been exposed to tobacco smoke in adolescence and adulthood. Those
women face an increased risk of breast cancer because of that exposure.”
There have been many studies over the years on the relationship between cigarette smoke
and breast cancer in women. The Panel comprehensively reviewed all available evidence,
including important recent evidence, and concluded there was a risk even non-smoking
young women face through passive exposure to cigarette smoke. The Panel also
concluded that the relationship of active smoking to both pre- and post-menopausal breast
cancer is consistent with causality, but there is not yet enough evidence to draw a
conclusion about the nature of the relationship between exposure to second-hand smoke
and breast cancer for older, post-menopausal women.
“It is important from a public health perspective to get the message out to the public, and
young women in particular, that available evidence shows that both active smoking and
exposure to passive smoke increase the risk of breast cancer,” said panelist, Professor
Anthony Miller.
Prior to collaborating on the report released today, the Expert Panel met on November 10
and 11, 2008 in Toronto as part of the conference Tobacco Control for the 21st Century:
Challenges in Research and Evaluation, organized by the Ontario Tobacco Research Unit
(OTRU).

Authorities say careless smoking is to blame for a fire that killed a 10-year-old Des Moines girl.

Police released the cause of the weekend fire on Wednesday, saying a man living next door passed out with a lit cigarette.

Firefighters were called to the apartment house Saturday night. Three people were taken to the hospital, including 10-year-old Czu Toffoi and her grandparents.

Czu died a day later. Her grandparents remain in critical condition at University Hospitals in Iowa City.

Police say the neighbor passed out in his bedroom with a lit cigarette after drinking. They say the fire was an accident and no charges will be filed.

The Times’ exposé immediately generated a flood of reactions. Many expressed outrage that the woman appointed to complete Hillary Clinton’s term in the United States Senate spent many years fighting tooth and nail to defend the interests of the world’s largest cigarette company. A representative comment: “Her morals suggest that she would ignore human death and suffering for the right price. She should resign immediately.”
Some observers focused on the fact that, rather than simply arguing Big Tobacco’s side, Ms. Gillibrand played a central role in hiding from prosecutors and injured smokers many internal company documents that showed what Philip Morris knew about the harm caused by their products, and when they knew it.
Other observers reacted skeptically to the Times’ coverage. One said simply, “I’m not sure what the point of this article is. A lawyer represented a client.” Another argued, “This is a lame attempt at a hit piece. Ms. Gillibrand was an attorney at a New York law firm. One of an attorney’s foremost ethical obligations is to zealously represent their clients.”

Let’s briefly examine what is involved here by looking back at a landmark federal court decision issued on August 17, 2006 in the case of United States v. Philip Morris USA et al. In that case, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice against this nation’s major cigarette companies, U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler held Kirsten Gillibrand’s client and the other defendants liable for having violated civil racketeering (RICO) laws [PDF] by lying, and continuing to lie, about the health risks of smoking and secondhand smoke and their marketing to children. Judge Kessler supported her decision with an opinion weighing in at 1,742 pages. In it, she wrote:

[This case] is about an industry, and in particular these Defendants, that survives, and profits, from selling a highly addictive product which causes diseases that lead to a staggering number of deaths per year, an immeasurable amount of human suffering and economic loss, and a profound burden on our national health care system. Defendants have known many of these facts for at least 50 years or more. Despite that knowledge, they have consistently, repeatedly and with enormous skill and sophistication, denied these facts to the public, the Government, and to the public health community.

She added, “The evidence in this case clearly establishes that Defendants have not ceased engaging in unlawful activity.” How does this relate to Senator Gillibrand’s work as a lawyer defending such actions? Judge Kessler helped answer this question:

A word must be said about the role of lawyers in this fifty-year history of deceiving smokers, potential smokers, and the American public about the hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke, and the addictiveness of nicotine. At every stage, lawyers played an absolutely central role in the creation and perpetuation of the [racketeering] Enterprise and the implementation of its fraudulent schemes. They devised and coordinated both national and international strategy; they directed scientists as to what research they should and should not undertake; they vetted scientific research papers and reports as well as public relations materials to ensure that the interests of the Enterprise would be protected; they identified “friendly” scientific witnesses, subsidized them with grants … paid them enormous fees, and often hid the relationship between those witnesses and the industry; and they devised and carried out document destruction policies and took shelter behind baseless assertions of the attorney client privilege. What a sad and disquieting chapter in the history of an honorable and often courageous profession.”

Then she added, “It would appear this situation continues even to the present.”
Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. As noted by the New York Times, “many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at [Gillibrand's law firm] were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work.”
As a colleague of mine observed, “Everyone is accountable for the choices they make in their life.” He then pointed me to a story that just appeared in the Portland Tribune about a Harvard lawyer, Jefferson Smith, who is a recently elected Oregon state legislator. Rep. Smith, like Senator Gillibrand, inherited a powerful political pedigree, graduated with a top-flight legal education and eventually entered politics. Where the two stories diverge is reflected in the following:

[After graduating from law school,] Smith accepted a post with a top Manhattan law firm, which waited while he studied for New York’s bar exam. But his second day on the job, Smith balked when asked to take a case representing tobacco companies.
“He walked away from $180,000 a year before bonuses,” recalled his dad, “because he decided his conscience wouldn’t let him.”

Again, Kirsten Gillibrand had a choice. The New York Times asked whether she had any misgivings about representing Big Tobacco. She declined to be interviewed, and her spokesman dodged the question.
Will the past be prologue? What matters now is what Kirsten Gillibrand does in her service as a representative of the people of New York and the nation. Will she, for example, firmly support pending legislation to grant the Food and Drug Administration long overdue authority to regulate tobacco for health and safety? Cigarettes are the deadliest product sold in America, and yet they are exempt from even the most basic health regulations that apply to other consumer products, such as food, drugs and even lipstick. This year, the U.S. Congress has a truly historic opportunity to protect our children from tobacco addiction and save lives.
Will she be a part of it? My assumption is that she will, since, for business reasons — the main one being Philip Morris’s market dominance over its competitors — her former client and current political benefactor happens to support FDA regulation of tobacco. But what if Philip Morris changes its mind and decides to follow in lockstep with the rest of the industry, which vehemently opposes such regulation? Will Senator Gillibrand follow? Again, she’ll have a choice.

Source: Awearnessblog

Despite the new federal cigarettes tax comes into force next week, smokers have already been suffering form the price increase that came out of blue and lightened their wallets.

The increase that makes up more than 150 percents would provide health insurance for children from low-income families.

However, leading cigarette manufacturers did not hesitate to raise prices for their products.

Philip Morris, Marlboro and Virginia producer raised the price by 71 cents per pack in order to cover 62-cent-tax increase.
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco followed the main rival’s steps by increasing prices on key brands by 44 cents and removing discounts.

Cigarette manufacturers’ price hikes have made retailers and especially smokers furious because they had to spend more money on cigarettes even before the tax actually comes into effect.

”Paying this price for cigarettes, I feel like I am being robbed by the tobacco companies, ” complained Barbara Schleps, 51, an architect from Sacramento who used to smoke 10 cigarettes each day before feeling that the cigarettes severely lighted up her wallet.

Producer and importers of tobacco products including cigarettes are obliged to pay the excise tax to the federal government. They render their expenses on their wholesale prices directed to retailers who in their turn handle these prices to ordinary customers, adding as well their profits.

At the mean time smaller tobacco companies like the Dosal Tobacco decided to leave the prices for their brands on the same level until April, 1. And they seem to gain much more benefits from this decision, because smokers seeing the incredible prices on their favorite Marlboros and Camels simply switch to less expensive brands, like those that Dosal Tobacco produces.

The chairman of Florida-based Dosal Tobacco that emerged to become the third-largest cigarette manufacturer in the US thanks to its discount brands like 305’s and DTC said that according to sales reports 305s have become the best selling brand in Florida.

He also stated that cigarette industry tycoons hiked the prices driven by greed and the desire to grab as much money as they can in anticipation of inevitable sale declines due to excise tax increase.

In response to the declaration of Dosal Chairman, Philip Morris’ spokesman said that those are simply rival’s intrigues denying that the company has increased the costs three weeks prior to federal tax taking effect in order to collect extra revenues.

He insisted that Philip Morris had to raise prices because they have to deposit money in order to pay the cost of the upcoming taxes for the cigarettes that have already been passed to their distribution system but would come into market after April, 1.

Industry experts estimated that cigarette sales would go down by almost 8 percent.

The forthcoming tax increase would be applied to other tobacco containing products as well. Tobacco for rolling and chewing, snuff, and cigars would also become more expensive pleasures in several days. For example, the excise tax on cigars would jump to 40 cents each cigar from the current 5 cents.

”With current economic downfall people will simply search for existing options: online tobacco stores or tax-free Indian made cigarettes,” complained Aisha Patel, sales manager of Crocodile Bay Smoke shop in Opa-locka.

At the same time many states including Florida are introducing new bills in order to increase state taxes on cigarettes. The reason is simple they need additional revenue to cover budget holes.

Providing that those bills would be approved, the price of Camels in Florida stores would jump to more than $5 per pack.

Smokers have already begun fuming about possible state tax increases. “When do they stop torturing us?” asked Julia Nunez, 35 lawyer while smoking outside her office in Jacksonville. ”If my cigarettes rose to five dollars I would give up for sure,” she said.

Other smokers, such as Miami Dade engineer Don Hirsh, admitted they would simply buy cheaper cigarettes.

Hirsh said he has already bought a pack DTC cigarettes to try them because they cost much cheaper than Kools he has been smoking for 20 years.

Source: Best-tobacco