The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) came into effect, marking an important milestone in public health history on 26th February in 2005.

Already 168 out of 195 eligible parties have joined the treaty through ratification or accession, and more are set to join. Sri Lanka too ratified the FCTC in 2003 expressing its willingness to join the treaty.

Many countries have implemented effective evidence based measures to decrease prevalence of tobacco use and save lives through banning tobacco advertising and sponsorship; through protecting citizens from tobacco smoke exposure; and through mandating pictorial warnings on cigarette packs.

The FCTC is a remarkable achievement because:

It is the first treaty negotiated under the auspices of the WHO, a resounding recognition that international law has a critical role to play in global health.

The treaty catalyzed global action, elevating the importance of tobacco control as a global health and political issue, stimulating policy change at the domestic level and bringing new public and private resources into the field.

The FCTC Conference of the Parties (COP) adopted strong guidelines on four of the convention’s key substantive articles, and work is underway on the development of a number of other guidelines and a protocol.

However, for each success there is an equally difficult ongoing challenge because universal FCTC implementation is still far away, particularly with respect to tobacco taxation, control of illicit trade of tobacco products and any measures that require resources, such as public education and cessation.

Richer parties have also made no significant effort to ensure tobacco control efforts in low and middle income countries receive appropriate technical and financial assistance. FCA would like to see countries include tobacco control in their development agendas to boost funding in this crucial area.

While tobacco kills more than 5 million people a year, tobacco control programs are grossly underfunded. As a result, during the next five years FCA will focus on improving FCTC implementation and increasing resources to adequately fund implementation of measures and policies that are compliant with the treaty.

Framework Convention Alliance would also like to see more stringent measures in place such as 90 per cent graphic warnings on cigarette packages; bans on cigarette package displays and duty free tobacco sales; generic packaging; higher tobacco taxes; more cessation methods; and an effective protocol on illicit trade in tobacco products.

FCA director Laurent Huber said that over the past five years, the number of deaths caused by tobacco has increased and not decreased. “Tobacco use remains high in low and middle income countries and it is increasing among women and young people,” he said. “We have five years of good progress on policy but deaths due to tobacco use continue to rise. Governments need to fund their policy promises to stem the tide of tobacco deaths.”

The Council today adopted a directive1 updating EU rules on the structure and rates of excise duties on cigarettes and other tobacco products (17778/09 + 5807/10).

The directive is intended to ensure a higher level of public health protection by raising minimum excise duties on cigarettes, whilst bringing the minimum rates for fine-cut tobacco gradually into line with those for cigarettes. The outcome of a fourth four-yearly review of tobacco taxation under directives 92/79, 92/80 and 95/59, it is aimed at modernising and simplifying the rules and making them more transparent.

The new directive includes the following provisions:

– Cigarettes: the Council decided to increase, by 1 January 2014, the monetary minimum excise rate to 90 EUR per 1000 cigarettes and the proportional minimum to 60% of the weighted average sales price, from 64 EUR per 1000 and 57% at present;

– Transitional period for cigarettes: the new rules allow for transitional arrangements until 1 January 2018 for member states that have not yet achieved, or only recently achieved, the current minimum rates, namely Bulgaria, Greece, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland and Romania;

– Quantitative restrictions for cigarettes: the directive allows member states not benefiting from the transition to impose a quantitative limit of at least 300 cigarettes on the number of cigarettes that may be brought into their territory from member states applying transitional arrangements. It also allows member states applying those arrangements, once their rates have reached 77 EUR per 1000 cigarettes, to apply quantitative limits with regard to member states whose rates have not yet reached an equal monetary level;

– Fine-cut tobacco: the Council decided to increase the minimum excise duty requirements for fine-cut tobacco as follows: member states will comply with either a proportional minimum or a monetary minimum, amounting to 40% of the weighted average sales price and 40 EUR per kg on 1 January 2011, 43% and 47 EUR/kg on 1 January 2013, 46% and 54 EUR/kg on 1 January 2015, 48% and 60 EUR/kg on 1 January 2018 and 50% and 60 EUR/kg on 1 January 2020.

Lawmakers are scheduled to vote this week on a bill that could increase the price of cigarettes by $2 a pack.

The American Red Cross

Senators decided to vote on Bill 150 last night after discussing the bill for several hours. Sen. Benjamin Cruz, an author of the bill, said it will be voted on by Friday.

If Bill 150 becomes a law, new taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products will take effect 60 days later. The current $1 tax on cigarettes will climb to $3 and the current $3.50 tax on a pound of snuff will climb to $14.

Cruz said he hoped a higher price on cigarettes would persuade some smokers to quit and prevent children from starting. According to the bill, Guam has the highest rate of adult tobacco use of all U.S. states and territories. “It’s embarrassing to discover that on Guam we are number one, but not in education. We are number one in smoking,” he said. Adding later: “We are number one for the wrong reason.”

If Bill 150 is passed, the money raised by the new taxes will go into the Healthy Futures Fund, a new pool for money that can be appropriated by the Legislature for health agencies, substance abuse awareness programs and public safety programs.

About a third of the money will go to Guam Memorial Hospital, the Guam Cancer Trust Fund and the Guam Cancer Registry. Speaker Judith Won Pat called the bill the single most effective policy to lower tobacco rates and to build programs that prevent smoking habits.

Most of the debate on the bill was about how high the new taxes should be.

Sen. Adolpho Palacios felt $2 tax increase per pack was not enough. Palacios said senators should shape the taxes added by the bill by considering how much smoking costs the government in health care.

Tobacco products are a leading cause of lung cancer and lung cancer is the most common cause of death on Guam, according to Pacific Daily News files.

Even if these taxes are enacted, some people will continue to smoke, Palacios said. If they chose to do so, they should pay for the costs of their future health care, he said. “Even if we double this or triple this, there will be smokers and they will still not pay for all the harms and ills they create,” Palacios said.

Not all senators supported the increase. Sens. Frank Blas Jr. and Telo Taitague worried the new taxes could push smokers to a black market. Blas worried smokers might be driven to crime to support their addiction.

Taitague said the increase was too much too soon. “At the rate we are going right now we might as well just ban cigarette smoking on Guam, period,” she said.
Snuff

Cruz initially proposed a larger increase to the taxes on other kinds of tobacco, including snuff, because he wanted it to be equal to the new tax on cigarettes. Cruz didn’t want the new taxes to force smokers to switch to snuff, which “is even more disgusting.” The current tax on snuff is $3.50 per pound, but senators have considered raising the price to as much as $21 per pound.
January 21, 2010

Should they turn their gaze northward, state legislators looking to increase tobacco taxes by as much as $1 per pack will discover a cautionary tale.

One recent report out of Canada suggests that 48 percent of cigarettes consumed in Ontario, for example, come from smuggling — a rate that has increased and decreased with excise tax rates.

Our own research indicates that, if the $1-per-pack tax increase is adopted in Washington, the state’s cigarette smuggling rate will leap to more than 50 percent of the total market, along with other very expensive unintended consequences.

As recently as 1980, cigarette tax rates in Canada were in the same range as in most U.S. states. In a book published in 2000, “Tobacco Control in Developing Countries,” several economists describe how this changed beginning in the early 1980s. By 1994, Canadian federal and provincial cigarette taxes had been increased to “more than five times the U.S. average.”

As a result, smuggling accounted for 30 percent of the market by 1993. To combat this, Canada’s federal government (and some provinces) slashed cigarette tax rates in 1994. As predicted, legal sales rose dramatically and “the overall smuggling problem all but disappeared.”

The economics lesson didn’t stick, however. By 1998, Canada’s politicians were once again increasing cigarette taxes, widening the gap between their rates and most American taxing jurisdictions. As a result, Canada began experiencing renewed and rampant cigarette smuggling.

In March 2009, the Center for Public Integrity described Canada as having “a runaway black market,” complete with brazen heists from tobacco farmers, mobster- and gang-related crime, and even violence against police.

Of course, these unintended consequences are not limited to Canada. Examples of theft, violence and organized crime involvement in the illicit cigarette trade are reported with great frequency here in the United States, too.

In December 2008 we published a study with colleague Patrick Fleenor, titled “titled “Cigarette Taxes and Smuggling: A Statistical Analysis and Historical Review,” designed to measure the smuggling rates of 47 contiguous states. We recently updated the model to include changes to the Federal Excise Tax.

Based on that model, we believe that hiking taxes $1 per pack will lead to a leap in the total smuggling rate in Washington from 39.3 percent to 51.5 percent. That is, 51.5 percent of the cigarettes smoked in the state of Washington will be contraband.

We also expect legal paid sales to drop by at least 20 percent over 12 months following the tax hike, but as a direct result of smuggling, not from people quitting smoking. Research shows that as much as 85 percent of the after tax-increase change in cigarette sales is a function of tax avoidance — as opposed to smoking avoidance.

The smuggling will occur in two major forms: casual and commercial.

Casual smuggling typically involves individual bargain hunters shopping for themselves or perhaps a friend over the state border or perhaps on the Internet.

Commercial smuggling involves large-scale organizations that ship semi-tractor trailers and vans long distances and maintain complex distribution systems.

Our estimates indicate that nearly 30 percent of the smuggling will come from these commercial haulers. It’s worth noting that some of the trailers are actually hijacked from underneath legitimate truckers themselves.

Anyone familiar with the history of alcohol prohibition knows that much of the booze consumed in the states then was brought in illegally from Canada. Today’s policymakers are engaging in a form of “prohibition by price” — making cigarettes effectively illegal by raising their costs — so we’re reliving many of the unintended consequences of that era.

Consider some parallels: violence against police, corruption of law enforcement, the sale of adulterated products manufactured by illegal producers (“bathtub smokes,” anyone?), smuggling, theft, hijacking, expansion of organized crime syndicates and even the sale of “loosies” – cigarettes illegally sold one stick at a time. (During Prohibition, men would sell single shots of whiskey to factory workers leaving manufacturing plants in the Detroit area.)

If state lawmakers wish to hike cigarette taxes, they must do so with the knowledge that the new rate is likely to generate a fraction of the new revenues they suspect and much more in the way of crime.

Today’s cigarette smuggling issues — on both sides of the U.S.-Canadian border — are the product of an addiction: Politicians addicted to the tax revenue generated by the sale of a legal product that people want.

Michael D. LaFaive is director of the Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Todd Nesbit is a Penn State economist and Mackinac Center adjunct scholar.

Almost all states are democratic, that’s why people have the same rights. As a smoker has a right to smoke and a non-smoker should be guaranteed the right to breathe clean and health air.

That’s why smoking was banned on most public areas by a lot of countries. Now the customers of most bars and restaurants will no longer be able to light up inside.

But not all smokers can accept this legislation. For example, Gloria Jean Bergman, owner of Jean’s Place in Havelock declared: “I think at 21 years of age, you’ve got the right to decide if you want to smoke or not. They are violating on our rights as citizens.”

Only private country clubs and private non-profit bars, such as a VFW for example, are exempt from the new law. They are above the law only just because they’ve got a golf course, a tennis court or a swimming pool

Smokers declared that over 90 percent of the people are smokers, but they can’t understand why does second-hand smoke affect people in general but it doesn’t influence people in country clubs or cigar bars?’

The new law demands that no smoking signs be raised and all interior ashtrays be removed forever.

The bar owners declared that people don’t come to restaurants or bars now only because of the smoking. In general, 90 percent of customers smoke.

Even the waitress Renee Schmucker, a smoker, doesn’t like the new legislation.

“Honestly, I think it should be left up to the owners. It’s their business and they should have a choice of whether to permit it or not. It’s not fair. Nobody’s bending your arms to smoke, and nobody’s twisting your arms not to,” she explained.

Joseph Richardson, another customer, believes the current measure in which restaurants have smoking and non-smoking sections works.

“I understand that they’re doing it for health reasons, but I think you should be able to choose on you own,” he said.

Till now were approved a lot of anti-tobacco legislations, however no one worked. For example a high cigarette taxes among the states contributed to smugglers purchasing smokes on a legal basis in states with lower taxes and then smuggling cigarettes and reselling them in areas where taxes are much heftier, making also counterfeit tax stamps and cigarettes. Smokers declared that the same situation will happened with smokers this time too. They will go to the bars and restaurant where will be allowed smoking. And in this way the bars and restaurant business will decline.

Smokers have tried a long list of ways to quit: cold turkey, counseling, gum, patches and more.

Now, a small company is hoping it can make millions of dollars by creating a vaccine for people who want to kick the habit. Nabi Biopharmaceuticals of Rockville, Md., which is in the late stages of testing its experimental vaccine, took a big step toward its goal last week by striking a deal with pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

Under the agreement, GlaxoSmithKline will pick up the cost of developing and marketing the vaccine, called NicVax, if Nabi successfully completes the Phase 3 trials now under way.

“GSK is one of the preeminent pharmaceutical companies with worldwide commercialization reach,” Raafat Fahim, Nabi president and chief executive, said in a conference call with investors last week.

For many years, the standard treatment for breaking a smoker’s dependence on nicotine has been patches or gum that contain declining dosages of the substance in an effort to wean addicts off their dependence.

Nabi’s experimental vaccine, a decade in the works, tries a more direct approach: It shuts down nicotine’s access to the brain. Smokers may light up a cigarette while on NicVax, but if the drug works as intended, they won’t feel any of the stimulating effects they crave from nicotine.

NicVax causes the immune system to create antibodies that bond with the nicotine molecule if it enters the bloodstream. The result is a molecule too large to pass along to the brain. In short, the vaccine seeks to make the body immune to nicotine.

If smokers can’t get a buzz from lighting up a cigarette, the thinking goes, there’s no reason for them to continue the habit. Since the antibodies created by NicVax stay in the body for a long period of time, the chances of a smoker quickly returning to the habit are low.

“It breaks the cycle of addiction,” Fahim said.

So far, the vaccine has completed its early and middle rounds of testing. The company plans to have the results of its recently commenced final round in 2011.

“At first blush, it sounds crazy,” said Norman Edelman, chief medical officer of the American Lung Association. After all, creating a vaccine against a small nicotine molecule is a large challenge, he said, “but it’s not beyond the realm of belief.”

Cheryl Healton, president and chief executive of the American Legacy Foundation, a public health nonprofit, said it’s the long-term effects of NicVax as a smoking cure that make it revolutionary. Smokers don’t usually quit successfully on the first try — on average there are eight to 11 failed attempts, she said.

Under the terms of the deal with GlaxoSmithKline, Nabi will receive $40 million initially for the exclusive worldwide licensing rights to the drug. The company stands to make as much as $500 million from the deal with GSK if the company meets a number of developmental and marketing milestones in the coming years. That figure doesn’t include royalties the company would earn if the product makes it to market.

“Needless to say, I’m very pleased with the agreement with GlaxoSmithKline, which provides not only for the development and potential commercialization of NicVax, but also for the development of its second-generation nicotine vaccines,” Fahim told investors.

David Moskowitz, an equity analyst with Caris and Co., said the new anti-smoking drug Chantix, which entered the market in 2006, is already worth about $800 million in sales.

“There is a large opportunity in the smoking-cessation market,” he said.

While the percentage of adults who use tobacco has been on a steady decline over the least few decades, recent years have seen that trend flatten out. Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 20.6 percent of U.S. adults count themselves as smokers, a figure that’s virtually unchanged since 2004, when it was 20.9 percent.

Nabi isn’t the only firm trying to defeat the smoking habit with this type of vaccine, but it appears to have a head start on the competition, said Stephen Dunn, managing director of life science research at Jesup & Lamont.

An experimental drug from Swiss pharmaceutical firm Novartis and Cytos Biotechnology recently failed a middle round of testing, casting doubts on whether it will reach the market.

By Mike Musgrove
WASHINGTON POST

With ASH (US version) holding a hard contempt for the e cigarette on the market, it’s original founders in the UK have gone in a total opposite direction from the U.S. based ASH that mimicked ASH U.K. in working to save over 400,000 smokers a year from sure and miserable death.

The United Kingdom version of ASH organization has now released a document that states that one of the few downsides of the electronic cigarette is that the levels of nicotine as “low”, and may not give users the amount of nicotine needed to keep them using the e cigarette over the real thing. They further state their support for other alternatives to tobacco.

“ASH supports a harm reduction approach to tobacco, that is, we see that while efforts to help consumers stop smoking should remain a priority, many people either do not want to stop smoking or find it extremely difficult to do so. For this group, we believe that products should be made available that deliver nicotine in a safe way, without the harmful components found in tobacco. Most of the diseases associated with smoking are caused by inhaling smoke which contains thousands of toxic chemicals. By contrast, nicotine is relatively safe. Therefore, electronic cigarettes, which deliver nicotine without the nasty toxins found in tobacco smoke, are likely to be a safer alternative to smoking. Also to add, e-cigarettes reduce secondhand smoke exposure since they do not produce smoke.”

Recent studies conducted by doctors show that 45% of electronic cigarette users stopped smoking tobacco within 8 weeks of starting with the product, along with other studies by trusted companies around the world stating that e cigarettes are between 100 to 1000 times much safer and/or better for the user, combined with the destroyed credibility of ASH in the U.S. due to the discovery of millions of dollars in financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, Is it any wonder that the people in the US are expecting the electronic cigarette to be around for quite awhile?

November 18, 2009
by Jeff Smith

It’s about two months before the statewide, indoor smoking ban goes into effect Jan. 2 – at least they were considerate enough to wait until after New Year’s Eve parties.

The long-debated law will require most bars and restaurants to permanently empty their ash trays or face potential fines. Patio and outdoor smoking still will be allowed.

The state last week launched a Web site to prep business owners and individuals about the new law and how it will function.

There’s information about enforcement and how people can complain if the establishment doesn’t keep people from smoking.

It also outlines responsibilities for bar and restaurant owners, such as posting “No Smoking” signs and directing customers to put out their cigarette or cigar.

Speaking of stogies, the site also outlines what types of establishments are exempted from the ban, which include cigar bars.

Private clubs also are exempted, which apparently has led to some confusion for some bar owners.

Because of another state law, customers have to become members at bars and sign in when they patronage a bar. Ergo, shouldn’t these bars with their memberships qualify as private clubs and fall into the smoking ban loophole? Not exactly, according to the state’s Web site.

State officials have this to say about private clubs as they relate to the smoking ban law:

Private clubs and country clubs – In order to qualify for this exception, the club must satisfy all of the following criteria:

Membership: The club must maintain selective members.

Operations: The club must be operated by the members.

Restricted service: The club must not provide food or lodging for pay to anyone who is not a member or a member’s guest.

Nonprofit status: The club must either be: incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under state law … or exempt from paying federal income tax under federal Internal Revenue Code.

Local health department officials, who will be in charge of enforcement, said they will start to send out information to bars and restaurantss.

They have, however, been a little busy lately with the H1N1 virus.

“The environmental health staff who inspect the restaurants, they’re the ones that are going to distribute the information,” said Fred Michael, deputy health director in Brunswick County.

New Hanover County Health Director David Rice has drafted a letter for business owners about the new law and talking with state officials about distribution.

Rice points out that some employees might be motivated to quit smoking in conjunction with the new ban.

“As an employer, you are in a position to assist your employees who want to quit,” he wrote in the letter, pointing to the state’s free and confidential telephone help line – N.C. Tobacco Use Quitline at (800) 784-8669.

By Vicky Eckenrode
Vicky.Eckenrode@StarNewsOnline.com
November 5, 2009 Starnewsonline

This past June, the U.S. Senate empowered the FDA to oversee the marketing and packaging of tobacco products. Among the FDA’s first targets: controversial descriptors like “light,” “mild,” and “low tar,” terms that regulators claim improperly imply healthful qualities (and are already banned in dozens of countries around the world). While tobacco companies have until June 22, 2010, to drop the language from their marketing, some brands are already evolving the language and colors on their packaging. Manufacturers claim they are simply communicating relevant brand attributes to consumers, but health advocacy groups argue the changes are intended to circumvent the new laws. The FDA has stated that the changes are under review.

Fast Company tapped two tobacco control experts: David Hammond, an assistant professor at the University of Waterloo, and Maansi Bansal-Travers, a research scientist with the Roswell Park Cancer Institute. They provided their take on the industry’s reaction to the new regulations. Is it appropriate advertising or marketing malfeasance? Take a look for yourself at the slides that follow and let us know what you think.

“As marketing restrictions become stronger the pack becomes the best marketing tool,” Hammond says. “When the words come off the pack, the industry relies on colors to a greater extent then they used to.”

For example, Pall Mall recently removed descriptors like “full flavor” and “light,” relying entirely on the color of the pack and the names of colors to identify each flavor.

“Of course, brands have always used colors,” Hammond says. “The so called strengths of brands are aligned with the strengths of colors, and many smokers use colors as an indicator of risk. For example, red is perceived to be stronger than blue.”

In other words, as the flavors get “lighter,” so the do the colors. For example, Pall Mall’s Ultra Lights, while a vibrant orange, are still the lightest of the line. (The box was once light blue but was changed to orange in 2007 to avoid confusion with the blue Lights box.) The lighter the color, the healthier it appears to many smokers. In one of Hammond’s recent studies, 80% of those questioned (smokers and non-smokers) believed that cigarettes packaged in a light-blue box would taste better, would contain less tar, and would be safer than cigarettes packaged in a dark-blue box.

“Orange is a very interesting choice,” Bansal-Travers says. “No other brand I can think of uses orange as a cigarette pack color, but orange is certainly the lightest that PM uses, creating a spectrum of color and trying to equate that with the spectrum of risk.”

Primary design changes: Flavor descriptors, such as “Filter” and “Light,” have been dropped, replaced with the names of colors.

Secondary design changes: The phrase “Famous American Cigarettes” has been moved to the bottom. While the logo and Latin phrases “Per aspera ad astra” (“Through hardships to the stars”) and “In hoc signo vinces” (“By this sign you shall conquer”) remain, the phrases “KING SIZE BOX” and “Wherever particular people congregate” have been removed from the front of the boxes.

BY Lucas Conley, Oct 22, 2009

Philip Morris USA once again turned away from other companies, hypocritically praising the legislation that would restrict sales of certain tobacco products and prohibit outdoor public smoking.

Agents of Altria Group Inc., parent company of the leading US tobacco company, appeared at a hearing of Municipal Council last Tuesday, expressing their support of a proposal that included numerous provisions, that would definitely hurt the industry but fit their interests.

In reality, Mary Eva Canton, Altria principal lobbyist in the council drew up the major part of the bill, according to Phil Mendelson, at-large Councilman. He said that at the same day when he introduced the draft, he got a check for $500 as a donation to the latest campaign from Mrs. Canton.

In conformity with the bill, outdoor smoking should be prohibited within 10 feet from entrances of all public places.

Other provisions include:

• Establish requirements based on weight for the number of cigars sold in each package;
• Prohibit sales of unpacked cigars, excluding tobacco stores;
• Remove tobacco products from the stores’ shelves, requiring retailers to sell them from behind the counter.

However, Norman Sharp, chairman of the Cigar Association of America admitted that Philip Morris would profit whereas the bill would hurt the remaining part of cigar industry dramatically.

Black and Mild cigars, manufactured by Altria are the best-selling cigars across the United state, accounting for approximately 25 percent of the market. As these cigarettes are selling in packages by five, the ban on sales of single cigars would significantly increase the Black and Mild’s share, according to the CAA Chairman.

Moreover, the introduced weigh-based requirements would permit the tobacco giant to pack put all of its cigars in packs by two, as it is the minimal standard.

Altria as well agreed with retailers to obtain major part of behind-the-counter shelves’ space. So, restricting tobacco products to behind the counter sales would favor Altria, but ruin sales of products of other brands, Sharp added.

“Other brands would be simply invisible. Altria’s support of the bill shows the lack of respect to the rivals and destroys competition,” he underlined.

After getting to know the benefits of the bill for Altria, at-large Councilor said he was upset.

Altria’s lobbyist Canton, at the same time, asserted that the only aim of the bill was to make tobacco products unavailable to teenagers. When asked about the donation, Mrs. Canton refused giving comments.

Mendelson declared that the bill would be amended to prevent any tobacco company from benefiting.

The feedback would be considered until the middle of October.

The Ministry of Social Affairs and Health is proposing legislation with the aim of turning Finland into a completely tobacco-free country. If the legislation is approved, Finland will be the world’s first country to pass laws with the sole aim of eradicating tobacco use.

The Ministry made the announcement Thursday, when it presented Parliament with an outline of the plan. Parliament is expected to debate the proposals next week.

One of the proposal’s authors, Ismo Tuominen, stresses that tobacco use won’t be criminalised. Instead, existing anti-tobacco legislation will be broadened with a number of measures to remove it from sight and restrict its use in public.

“In Ireland in July, it became a requirement to hide tobacco products under counters,” notes Tuominen. “We’re following that example.”

In addition to banning the open display of tobacco products in shops, the reforms would also raise the minimum age to purchase tobacco to 18. It would also make it illegal for minors to sell, possess, or bring tobacco into the country. Behavioural restrictions would also be implemented; for example, it would be illegal to smoke in a car with children on board.

Tuominen feels that a government-backed agenda to end tobacco use sends a strong message. He says that simply aiming to reduce smoking is a tacit approval of tobacco.

The Ministry is now waiting for the expected furore from the tobacco industry.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – If the town of Nitro, W.Va., can’t change the minds of county health officials, then perhaps it can change the county where the health officials reside.

That’s the latest option being considered by Nitro officials who want to make the city’s most prominent business exempt from a Kanawha County smoking ban. Officials at Tri-State Racetrack and Gaming Center contend the ban, which started in July 2008, is bad for business.

Nitro, which straddles the border between Kanawha and Putnam counties, is looking at the possibility of cutting ties with the Kanawha-Charleston Health Department and linking up with health officials in Putnam County, where a similar smoking ban was rescinded two years ago.

The Putnam County Health Department already has responsibility for the 1/3 or so of Nitro within county borders, and city officials say a complete switchover makes sense.

“We’re serving two masters right now,” Nitro City Recorder Rita Cox said.

The plan, which Nitro officials began discussing this month and plan to present to the Putnam County Commission in October, wouldn’t affect other areas of town life administered by Kanawha County. Students who go to class in Kanawha schools would continue to do so. The idea is simply to switch health departments, and officials are candid about the reasoning.

“They allow smoking in Putnam County,” Nitro Mayor Rusty Casto said.

Nitro officials have tried other strategies to assist the casino, which employs about 800 people, in evading the smoking ban. Last month, the city council passed an ordinance allowing smoking in designated areas at the track, but the ordinance won’t take effect until after a court steps in.

The new proposal has raised eyebrows even among observers familiar with a city whose distinctive political culture has in recent years included a dispute over a World War I-era tank and allegations that one city councilman impersonated another while sending nude photos over the Internet.

“I don’t think it’s a logical or plausible thing to do,” Kanawha County Commission President Kent Carper said. “Why Putnam County? Why not Wirt County, or Mingo County? Do you get to pick which county has jurisdiction over you?”

State law seems to permit municipalities in more than one county to choose which county’s health board has jurisdiction, if there’s no municipal health board. Officials are seeking clarification from the state attorney general’s office.

But if the law allows it, a bigger question is whether Putnam County will.

“There would have to be a great, great, great advantage for the Putnam County Health Department to do this, and right now I don’t see any advantage,” said Jackie Fleshman, administrator of Putnam’s health department.

Taking on all of Nitro would involve significant costs, Fleshman said. Putnam officials have done little more than talk on the phone with a Nitro councilman, although they are expecting a delegation from the city at the Oct. 20 commission meeting.

The plan is a sign of Nitro officials’ seriousness about helping Tri-State at a time when large taxpayers in the city are hurting. Nitro recently saw two car dealerships shut down, with a third hovering on the brink of closure.

“That’s a big chunk of money,” Casto said. “Tri-State is real important here, and their business is down.”

Representatives from the track, which is owned by Hartman and Tyner Inc., didn’t return calls seeking comment, but an analysis of financial figures filed with the State Lottery Commission shows Tri-State’s business has been slumping, at least in the area of video lottery machines, where the bulk of revenue comes from.

In fiscal year 2008, before the smoking ban, the racetrack grossed $40,602 per machine. In fiscal year 2009, with the smoking ban in place, the track grossed $35,816 per machine, a drop of nearly 12 percent. On average, its gross revenues per machine have been declining by 10 percent per machine since the ban took effect.

None of the state’s three other racetracks has seen such a decline, and Tri-State is the only track whose county health board does not exempt at least parts of the property from a smoking ban.

Tri-State also has significantly fewer machines than the racetracks in Chester, Wheeling and Charles Town. During the fiscal year that ended in June, Tri-State’s weekly average of machines in use was 1,437 – which is 500 fewer than the casino in Wheeling. The track in Chester had more than 3,000 machines in weekly use, meanwhile, and Charles Town had more than 5,000.

Carper doesn’t believe the smoking ban is entirely to blame. Tri-State was the last of the three casinos to add table games, 11 months after poker started at Chester and Wheeling. And a planned 250-room hotel that followed table games was first delayed by the recession, then scaled back to 150 rooms when ground was finally broke in June, more than a year after plans were first announced.

“Tri-State has made all kinds of threats and said they’re going to go out of business,” he said. “But there’s an old saying: When you point the finger, you’ve got four more pointing back at you.”


Associated Press Writer Lawrence Messina contributed to this report.

EL CAJON — El Cajon’s tobacco licensing ordinance — one of the toughest in the state — is resulting in fewer stores illegally selling cigarettes to youngsters, backers say.

Five percent of 125 stores in El Cajon sold tobacco to youths who served as underage decoys in fiscal 2008, according to a report released last week. A similar survey in 2004, before El Cajon’s ordinance was enacted, showed that 40 percent of the city’s stores sold tobacco to minors.

El Cajon Councilman Gary Kendrick, who pushed for passage of the ordinance, said the numbers show that it’s working.

“It’s a tremendous success by any measure,” he said.

The El Cajon City Council approved a tobacco licensing ordinance in June 2004 to curb underage smoking. The city was the first in San Diego County to adopt such a law.

If El Cajon tobacco retailers violate the law by selling to minors, fail to ask for ID or do not display the proper signs, they risk a $1,000 fine or a 30-day license suspension. Retailers who violate the law four times in five years face the permanent loss of their licenses.

Many tobacco retailers were opposed to the law from the start, saying they were already taxed enough. Tobacco retailers were initially required to pay a $198 annual fee, which has since risen to $675 to cover the costs of enforcing and administering the program.

Samantha Dabish, vice president of the Neighborhood Market Association, said the cost of the permit is a financial burden for small stores. Educating business owners should be a higher priority than penalizing them, she said.

“We think (city officials) could work more as a team with the retailers rather than set them up,” said Dabish, whose association represents 2,000 retailers in California, Arizona and Nevada.

Since El Cajon’s passage of the measure, Vista and the city of San Diego have also approved ordinances requiring tobacco retailers to buy a license. Solana Beach approved an ordinance in July but it hasn’t gone in effect, while Del Mar is considering a similar ordinance.

The Center for Tobacco Policy Organizing, a unit of the American Lung Association, lists El Cajon among 63 communities in California with strong tobacco ordinances in effect for more than a year. More than 80 communities have passed ordinances, but some have provisions that make them ineffective, the group said.

Debbie Kelly of the American Lung Association said cities with strong tobacco licensing laws have seen dramatic decreases in tobacco sales to minors.

“These ordinances are very important,” she said. “If it’s harder for a kid to get their hands on tobacco, then maybe they just won’t do it.”

Communities Against Substance Abuse, an El Cajon nonprofit, has a $32,751 contract with El Cajon to recruit teenagers posing as cigarette buyers to ensure the law is being enforced.

One of the youths, 16-year-old Alma Alvarez, a senior at Steele Canyon High School in Jamul, said a clerk at one store urged her to buy a three-pack of cigarettes on sale when she asked for a pack of Camel Lights.

“It can be easy for a young person to obtain tobacco products if the laws regarding tobacco sales to minors are not consistently enforced,” Alvarez told the El Cajon City Council.


Union-Tribune

Anne Krueger: (619) 542-4575;

Assemblyman Lou Tobacco (R-South Shore) expects to get called back to Albany for a special session in the early fall, and expects more of the state Senate gridlock that marred the end of the last session.

And he doesn’t think things will improve once 2010 begins and everybody in the Legislature is up for re-election.

“I don’t believe it will be smooth sailing,” said Tobacco. “The new [Democratic] leadership, and I use that term loosely, hasn’t been tested. I don’t think there are strong coalitions there. I think we’ll see more of the same.”

With the state deficit expected to rise, Tobacco also fears that ordinary New Yorkers are going to get hit in the pocketbook through higher taxes again.

“The culture that controls Albany is philosophically different from me,” he said. “Now is not the time to kick people when they’re down by raising taxes.”

It’s a pivotal year in more ways than one. Whoever has control of the Senate after next year’s races will be in charge of drawing legislative district lines following the 2010 census. Democrats will be looking to hold on to what they’ve got, while the GOP will be hoping to get back in the majority.


Copyright © August 24, 2009 Silive

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray and Ohio Department of Health (ODH) Director Alvin D. Jackson, M.D., today announced the first lawsuits filed against Ohio establishments for violations of the Smoke-free Workplace Act. Complaints were filed in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas against O’Neal’s Tavern in Cincinnati and in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against Zeno’s in Columbus.

The complaints seek a court order requiring the bars to comply with the state smoking ban. The suits were brought against these establishments because of their repeated and extensive violations over the last two years. According to court documents, O’Neal’s Tavern has been cited for 12 violations accruing fines of more than $21,000, and Zeno’s has been cited for nine violations and fines of more than $28,000.

“The issue at hand is clear disregard for Ohio law,” said Cordray. “These establishments have been warned and fined repeatedly over a two-year period to no avail. They continuously push the limits and have given us no alternative but to seek the court’s intervention.”

In November 2006, Ohioans passed the Smoke Free Act, making Ohio the 12th state to protect all workers and the public from exposure to secondhand smoke in public places. Enforcement began May 3, 2007. Since then, more than 44,000 allegations have been called in to Ohio’s toll-free enforcement number, (866) 559-OHIO (6446).

With more than 280,000 public places and places of employment covered by the indoor smoking ban, Jackson noted the vast majority of Ohio businesses are complying with the law. Still, he added, ODH and its partners at Ohio’s local health departments will aggressively investigate all complaints in their efforts to protect and improve the health of all Ohioans. To date, more than 3,100 warning letters have been issued to violators and more than 1,800 fines assessed.

“We take our commitment to enforcing the will of Ohio’s voters seriously, and these filings illustrate that,” Jackson said. “Businesses must comply with the Ohio Smoke-free Workplace Act by prohibiting smoking, removing ashtrays and posting no-smoking signs with Ohio’s toll-free enforcement number.”


Copyright © 2009 Ohioattorneygeneral

Upon entering the door of almost any pub in Lebanon, one is forced to walk through a thick, suffocating cloud of smoke. Smokers almost always outnumber non-smokers in the country’s pubs, cafes and restaurants, so enjoying a drink or a meal means breathing in the cigarette fumes of fellow patrons.

While over 70 countries across the globe have implemented smoking bans in designated areas, Lebanon has not taken any such initiative. In addition, there is limited awareness on the health dangers of tobacco use and no incentive programs to help smokers quit. According to a 2008 World Health Organization report, Lebanon is the third-biggest consumer of tobacco in the Eastern Mediterranean after Jordan and Tunisia.

The staggering number of tobacco users in Lebanon has pushed academics and public health experts to take action.

Rima Nakkash, assistant research professor at the American University of Beirut’s Faculty of Health Sciences, is heading a project to study smoke-free policies in Lebanon. The project, funded by the International Development Research Center-Research in International Tobacco Control (IDRC-RITC) in Canada, aims to publish findings that can then influence the decisions of policymakers in Lebanon.

NOW Lebanon asked Nakkash about the research project, the prevalence of smoking in Lebanon and effective policies for tobacco control.

How prevalent is smoking in Lebanon, compared to regional and international countries?

Nakkash: [The two most prominent reports] are the worldwide Global Youth Tobacco Survey (GYTS) which examines self-reported smoking behavior among 13 to 15 year-olds in Lebanon, and the Mpower report by the World Health Organization. There is no nation-wide census in Lebanon, but cross-sectional studies show that the prevalence of smoking among the overall population, and in particular among youth and women, is very high.

According to a World Bank report in 2002, 46% of Lebanese men and 35% of women smoke. According to a 2006 Tobacco Atlas study, 35.7% of the Lebanese population smokes (42% of males and 30.6% females)…

The reason is that we are one of the weakest countries when it comes to tobacco-control policy and regulation. We have no bans on tobacco product advertising, no bans on smoking in public places and no awareness on the issue. In addition, cigarettes are ridiculously cheap and health warnings are miniscule.

What prevents the ratification and implementation of a tobacco control law in Lebanon?

Nakkash: In Lebanon, the attempts to pass new legislation started in the early 2000s… Lebanon ratified and signed the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) in 2005. The convention has a number of international control policies that are effective in reducing tobacco prevalence. Since Lebanon ratified the convention, we need to be following all the policies, such as smoke-free areas, total bans on advertising and promotion (indirect advertising such as sponsoring sports and music activities for example). But the problem is there is no recent updated law that can then be implemented. The current laws are old and weak.

Political deadlocks slow down the process. Recently there’s been a revival of discussion of the law, but we need parliament and cabinet support…

Another major reason is the successful lobbying of the tobacco industry. This is also the case in the rest of the world, not only Lebanon. Tobacco companies are driven by financial profit and don’t care about public health concerns.

What role does the Ministry of Public Health play?

Nakkash: The role of the Ministry of Public Health is crucial. The ministry hasn’t had enough resources to do the work though. It has a limited budget and there are other issues that take priority. They need to step up their efforts though.

What are some of the findings you came across in your study?

Nakkash: The debate on smoke-free places has just started. There are people who are asking for smoke-free places but they think it’s impossible in Lebanon. There are workplaces, restaurants, schools and universities that initiated smoke-free policies, but the effort has not been comprehensive. The purpose of smoke-free policies is to protect non-smokers and to encourage smokers to decrease smoking and eventually quit…
There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco. Smoking and non-smoking areas don’t work. It’s like trying to separate a urinating and a non-urinating section in a swimming pool… The solution is to have total bans. The other thing is to have large, graphic health warnings on cigarette packages… In addition, the government should raise taxes on tobacco and prevent tobacco industry interference in policy-making.

Why aren’t there clear health warnings on tobacco packages in Lebanon?

Nakkash: Because there are no laws obligating tobacco companies to include proper health warnings or images on cigarette packages. Warnings take up a space less than 15% of the package, but best practices indicate that it should be 50%, with big graphic images like the ones you see in Canada, Brazil, Australia, Egypt…

The WHO report on tobacco control indicates that smoking is more prevalent among Lebanese women than other women in the region. What is the reason for that?

Nakkash: The tobacco industry glamorizes and associates liberation with cigarettes. It’s more socially acceptable for women to smoke here than in other countries in the region.

Shouldn’t there be flexibility in allowing places to be smoke-friendly? Isn’t there a good side to Lebanon being a smoker’s paradise?

Nakkash: There is no room for flexibility. There are huge public health implications in not implementing tobacco-control policies in terms of mortality, exposure of children and pregnant women to second-hand smoke, etc. In addition, in the long term, our economy will be affected. Some people argue that we will lose money if we implement proper tobacco-control policy. When you consider the number of deaths, poor quality of life and loss of productivity due to absence from work, you will see the impact on the economy… Tobacco causes long-term chronic diseases that are a huge burden on the healthcare system.
Copyright © 2009 Nowlebanon

All of our recent rains mean the upcoming harvest season could be a bleak one for area farmers. While soybeans and corn can tolerate increased moisture to some degree, Local 12’s Rich Jaffe says one particular cash crop is already in big trouble.

Tuesday’s torrential rains tore through the hills of Adams County in the form of flash floods. Sections of State Route 41 were closed due to high water. The debris and rock left behind by the raging water is everywhere. Flood waters came right up to the edge of Chuck Burkhardts farm house. “It come up so quick it looked like waterfalls coming off the barns and stuff it was coming off so quick.. ten minutes at most it come out of the creek bed. It was all over the place, all the roads was shut down and everything.”

To give you a sense of just how much waters been moving through this area, this stream which is normally just a trickle yesterday was so high it was slamming against these timbers and then surging over the handrails.

The water has claimed another victim too… Southwest Ohio’s Tobacco crop. Kenny Ring had 35 acres of tobacco… 15 to 20 acres are now rotting in the fields. “Looking at maybe 50 percent loss or better, which I don’t need, but Mother Nature dumped ten inches of rain in two weeks and now we’ve got sunshine, we get sunshine I’ll lose more, just the way it is in the tobacco crop.”

“These plants just have too much water, the roots can’t get enough air, the water’s sealing it off, the plant can’t breathe basically and all that moisture’s just causing it to drown.”

Dugan says many farmers have lost as much as two third to one hundred percent of their crop. Once one of this area’s biggest cash crops, for this year anyway… tobacco’s become an agricultural tragedy, a victim of Mother Nature.

Dave Dugan tells us that while the corn and soybean crops can indeed handle more water than the tobacco can, farmers are still expecting a reduced yield from both of those crops as well come harvest time.

A proposed ban on tobacco would end sales on U.S. military bases and prohibit uniformed soldiers from smoking, even in combat, authorities said.

The ban was proposed in a study commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs, USA Today reported.

The study, which recommends phasing out tobacco products during a 5- to 10-year period, said tobacco use impairs military readiness and can cause lung cancer and cardiovascular disease, CNN reported Sunday.

While any final decision rests with Defense Secretary Robert Gates, many in uniform would oppose such a ban, said retired Gen. Russel Honore, known for his ever-present cigar when he coordinated military relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina.

“When you’re tired and you’ve been going days on end with minimum sleep, and you are not getting the proper meals on time, that hit of tobacco can make a difference,” Honore said.

One in three U.S. service members uses tobacco, compared with one in five adult Americans overall, the VA said, noting combat veterans are 50 percent more likely to use tobacco than soldiers who haven’t seen combat.
Copyright © 2009 Upi

Ninety percent of Turks support a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants that will come into force this month, a poll showed.

More than half the respondents also said that they were concerned the July 19 ban won’t be properly enforced, according to the poll of 600 people by Istanbul-based Quirk Global Strategies published today.

About 35 percent of all adult Turks smoke, including more than half the men in the country of 72 million. Philip Morris International Inc. and British American Tobacco Plc are among the companies that make cigarettes in Turkey. This month’s ban follows legislation that in May 2008 outlawed cigarettes in workplaces, shopping malls, schools and hospitals.

Turkey’s government collects about $8.5 billion a year in taxes on tobacco products, and spends about half that amount treating smoking-related illnesses, Toker Erguder, who runs the World Health Organization’s tobacco-control project in Turkey, said at a news conference in Istanbul today.

The Turkish poll had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.


Copyright © 2009 Bloomberg

Before too long, you may be forced to stare at a photo of blackened lungs, oozing decay, every time you go to the bodega for a quart of milk. We’re trying to figure out where under the heading of quality of life to file this bit of news.

The photo is the latest idea from the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, part of its nonstop campaign to acquaint the citizenry with the wickedness of smoking. Show smokers right there at the checkout counter how much gunk coats their lungs and maybe they will reconsider plunking down that Hamilton for a pack of cigarettes. That’s the theory.

You might have thought that by now, even the most benighted smoker must know that the habit is destructive, no matter how satisfying in the short term. We’ve only had decades of government warnings on cigarette packs, not to mention recent television commercials showing two New Yorkers whose addiction led to the removal of a larynx and the amputation of fingers.

Well before the government first ordered those warnings, in 1964, cigarettes were routinely referred to as cancer sticks and coffin nails. Those were not intended as phrases of affection. Most people understood that, even those of us who smoked back then in a misguided belief that an unfiltered Gitane dangling from the lips in imitation of Jean-Paul Belmondo in “Breathless” was a way to counteract hard-wired nerdiness.

But the health department, led by its new commissioner, Dr. Thomas A. Farley, believes that more in-your-face tactics are required. Dr. Farley wants to require shops that sell cigarettes to post health warning signs prominently. After all, he said, the tobacco industry spends millions for advertisements at the “point of sale,” something perhaps better known to you as a cash register.

“They clearly work, or the industry wouldn’t do it,” he said. “It’s an addictive drug that’s killing hundreds of thousands of Americans. It seems to me that just providing a warning sign there is actually a reasonable and modest approach to try to counteract that.”

He added, “What we know is that counteradvertising in general works.”

The thing is, though, that despite his department’s estimate that a million New Yorkers continue to smoke, most of us don’t. Yet under the proposed new regulations, anyone who goes to the corner store will have to look at blackened lungs and possibly more. An assistant health commissioner, Sarah B. Perl, was quoted in The Daily News as saying that people are going to see what cancer of the mouth and the throat look like.

Really now, is it necessary to be subjected to such photos when all you want is a carton of orange juice?

It’s for the collective good, Dr. Farley replied. “The issue is that when people go to the store, they get advertisements encouraging them to smoke, encouraging them to pick up what is an addictive drug and is killing people,” he said. “So we need to balance that with some information that protects people.”

The Board of Health must approve any change. It plans a public hearing on July 30. Count on testimony being emotional — and predictable.

Antitobacco forces will insist, not without notes of piety, that the city must do whatever it takes to wipe out smoking. Libertarians will demand with equal fervor that the calorie-posting, trans-fat-banning mayor and his crew stop meddling in people’s lives. The tobacco industry will protest. Store owners will weep that City Hall is taking bread out of their children’s mouths.

You may count as well on the board’s endorsing the proposal. Its chairman happens to be Dr. Farley. Approval, he said, “is likely.”

IN that case, how about taking this approach even further? Why stop with cigarettes?

Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters, to show what too many Snickers bars can do? Or photos of clogged arteries at fast-food restaurants, to discourage orders of double cheeseburgers? To promote safe sex, graphic examples of Kaposi’s sarcoma could be placed by condom racks. Displays of horribly diseased livers in liquor stores ought to deter people from drinking to excess.

“I’m not prepared to think about things like that now,” Dr. Farley said. First things first. “Tobacco,” he said, “is far and away the No. 1 underlying killer in America.”

Then we’d best conquer it ASAP. Maybe it’s just us, but we can’t wait to move on to those fatty livers and blocked arteries.
Copyright © 2009 Nytimes

The government has raised consumption tax on cigarettes by between 6 and 11 percent to curb smoking and add revenue to State coffers.

The tax hike took effect on May 1 but was made public over the weekend along with a levy of 5 percent imposed on cigarette wholesalers, according to a statement by the State Administration of Taxation.

Cigarette tax increased to cut smoking
A No Smoking sign posted in front of a Traditional Chinese Medicine hospital in Beijing in this 2007 file photo. [Agencies]
Cigarette tax increased to cut smoking

The tax has not yet been passed on to smokers and it is unclear how much of the increase tobacco companies, wholesalers and retailers will absorb.

“The move will not only increase government revenue but also save the lives of millions,” Li Ling,a professor at the National School of Development at Peking University, told Xinhua News Agency.

The Chinese Association of Tobacco Control said in a statement yesterday: “Efforts to increase the tobacco tax and lift tobacco prices have proven the most effective in reducing smoking among smokers of all income levels. It will prevent young people from smoking and encourage more smokers to quit the harmful habit.”

The country has more than 350 million smokers, about a third of the population. Each year, more than 1 million people die from smoking-related illnesses.

Experts estimate that the annual death toll could rise to 2 million by 2025 and 3 million by 2050 as the effects of smoking start to appear on the increasing number of today’s teenage smokers.

The nation is the world’s largest cigarette market, with annual sales of two trillion cigarettes. But the government has been stepping up efforts to curb tobacco consumption over the years, especially after it joined the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control in 2005.

Experts say the nation’s taxation on tobacco products, about 40 percent on average, is well below that in most other countries, which is around 60 percent.

Even if the entire tax increase is borne by smokers, the price of an average cigarette packet on the mainland would be less than a third than in developed economies.

“We haven’t raised prices yet but will do so soon,” said Li Lin, a clerk at a cigarette shop in Beijing’s Chaoyang district.

Li said the tax increase would further dent business, adding sales have dropped substantially this year due to the financial crisis.

But Li, who smokes two packs everyday, said increased prices would have no effect on him. “I can give up meals but not cigarettes,” he said, puffing out a cloud of smoke.

The tax increase will add about 30 billion yuan of extra revenue for the central government, an unnamed official was quoted by Reuters as saying. The government has budgeted a record deficit for 2009 to fund its 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package.

Government revenue declined 6.7 percent in the first five months this year, compared with the same period a year earlier, even as spending surged 27.8 percent in the same period.

The government expects revenues to grow 8 percent to 6.6 trillion yuan in 2009, according to the budget announced in March.

“The main purpose of this policy is to increase the tax revenue from cigarettes, not to control smoking in the country,” Mao Zhengzhong, professor at the College of Public Health of Sichuan University, told China Daily yesterday.

He said cigarette makers may pass on all, or part of, the tax to retailers, or absorb it themselves.

Mao urged the government to increase the tax to 65 percent of the retail price to curb smoking, adding: “There is still a lot of room to raise the tax.”

Copyright © 2009 Chinadaily

Opponents of a statewide ban on smoking in bars and restaurants say they have collected enough signatures to put the law on hold for at least 17 months and send the issue to voters in November 2010.

If the petitions are certified by the South Dakota Secretary of State, the controversial ban will not take effect July 1. Instead, powerful lobbies on both sides of the issue will begin a 16-month campaign culminating when voters finally decide the issue.

“We’re already substantially over the necessary number,” said Larry Mann, coordinator of the petition drive to refer the ban. State law requires the signatures of 16,776 registered voters. Citizens for Individual Freedom, the group opposing the ban, on Monday will deliver the petitions to Secretary of State Chris Nelson to be certified.
Advertisement

Mann said most of the signatures collected in the months since Rounds signed the ban into law were collected by volunteers, and while some Deadwood casinos and area bars used employees to collect signatures, a few others were paid to carry clipboards.

Passed by legislators and signed by Gov. Mike Rounds earlier this year, the ban caused an uproar among some restaurateurs and bar owners, who argue that banning smoking will hurt their businesses and violates their rights as property owners. Smoking already is banned in most workplaces and public buildings.
Supporters of ban cite harm of delay

Even if voters uphold the ban – and scientific polls have showed it has broad support – referring the ban to voters would give bar and restaurant owners a long reprieve.

“We’re disappointed primarily because of the lives that will be unnecessarily lost and the tens of millions of dollars in health care savings that will not be realized because of a 17 or 18 month delay,” said Darrin Smith, a senior director for the American Heart Association and a steering committee member for the South Dakota Tobacco Free Kids Network.
Random sample to validate signatures

To send the issue to the ballot and put the ban on hold, the signatures must be filed with the state and validated as dictated by state law, Nelson said.

Efforts to further restrict smoking in public venues appear dead for the 2009 regular legislative session.

The death knell came as the Louisiana House Health and Welfare Committee voted overwhelmingly against state Senate-passed legislation even after being “watered-down.”

Senate Bill 186 would have banned smoking in all Louisiana bars, casinos and other gambling establishments. That was the version the Senate passed May 28 on a 22-10 vote.

During House committee testimony Tuesday, SB186 sponsor state Rep. Rob Marionneaux proposed a compromise that would have banned smoking only at bars that sell food.

Marionneaux said he had seen the handwriting on the wall as gambling interests helped shoot down a similar House bill when it came up on the floor last week. The House rejected on June 2 a similar measure that would have banned smoking in bars and casinos on a 29 for to 71 against vote.

“I have heard the drum beat behind me. The dice-hall boys have won again,” said Marionneaux, D-Grosse Tete.

Lobbyists for casino and other gambling interests continued to oppose the legislation even after their businesses were exempted from the proposed ban.

Marionneaux said his amended legislation would only try to correct a disparity in current law that bans smoking in restaurants but continues to allow smoking in bars that sell food. That inequity has been a complaint of the restaurant industry, he said.

Extending the ban — even in its altered state — would help cut down on non-smokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke, which causes 1,100 deaths annually in Louisiana, Marionneaux said.

The House panel approved Marionneaux’s amendment on a 10-5 vote.

But later, the panel rejected the amended bill with six committee members voting for it and 11 voting against it.

“This is about choice,” said state Rep. Robert Johnson, D-Marksville. “It seems to me that we should leave it up to the owners of bars.”

State Rep. Rick Nowlin, R-Natchitoches, said someone needs to represent smokers. “Where are they going to go? We are gradually reducing their options here.”

Copyright © 2009 2theadvocate

Tobacco Regulation Bill To Be Voted On In Senate

A piece of tobacco regulation is bound for the Senate floor as of this week.  The Family Smoking and Tobacco Control Act (S. 982) came out of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and is on track for Senate voting.

This bill, which was sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, is one of several efforts put forth by the federal government to give Washington the ability to regulate tobacco and tobacco products.  Though legislators have tried in the past, the federal government has never been able to oversee the tobacco industry.  That all would drastically change with the passage of this bill.

Until recently, the only government involvement with the tobacco industry has been through court cases, not actual policy.  S. 982 would set up a policy where the Food and Drug Administration would become the regulating authority over the “manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products” (S 982 sec 3.1). This would provide the FDA with much oversight into the heavily profitable tobacco industry.  Some of the main focus of the FDA oversight would include; disclosure of ingredients to tobacco products, the ability to regulate carcinogen levels allowed in tobacco products, and regulation of marketing techniques employed by the industry.

The bill is likely to have enough support to pass through the Senate, though opposition to the bill will want to add amendments to the bill’s language to limit FDA oversight.  As is expected, the bill is supported by several health agencies, and opposed by the tobacco industry and several advertising interests.

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

Analysis of Financial Statement Financial Year 2003 – Financial Year 2008

WITH winks and whistles, whirling lights and raucous song, slot machines beckon gamblers here at the Mohegan Sun casino, generating billions of dollars for the sovereign Mohegan Tribal Nation and its silent partner, the State of Connecticut.

Last year, patrons fed nearly $10 billion into 6,600 slot machines at the Mohegan Sun, a sprawling casino-and-entertainment complex overlooking the Thames River. The state’s portion was $221 million here and another $190 million from the other tribal gambling place, Foxwoods Resort Casino in Ledyard.

Since 1993, after Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. signed a gambling compact with the Mashantucket Pequots, allowing slot machines at Foxwoods in return for 25 percent of the gross, Connecticut has made $4.9 billion off casino gambling.

Now, the state legislature is trying to decide if it is willing to risk seeing that cash flow diminish, or even stop, in the name of public health by requiring the two tribal casinos to ban smoking by Oct. 1, 2011.

The tribes say that a smoking ban would drive away gamblers from a business already hurt by the recession. For the first time since the Sun opened in 1997, slot revenue to the state dipped by $19 million last year after a decade of steady growth.

Moreover, the Mohegans and Pequots assert that a legislative mandate on smoking would violate their tribal sovereignty, allowing them to withhold all slot revenue while they contested the issue in federal court.

“This is the first state to try to do something like this,” said Bruce Bozsum, chairman of the Mohegan Tribal Council. “So it’s my job right now to try to protect my tribe and to even reach further to protect all tribes across the country. Everybody is watching.”

Jackson King, general counsel to the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation, said the proposed smoking ban is the biggest threat to tribal sovereignty since the Pequots and Connecticut signed the compact in 1993. The Mohegans became a signatory after their federal recognition in 1994.

Backing the smoking ban is Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and the United Automobile Workers, a union with many friends among the Democratic majority in the General Assembly. The U.A.W. is now trying to negotiate its first contract with the Pequots on behalf of 2,500 dealers at Foxwoods.

Jack Edwards, a dealer of table games at Foxwoods for a dozen years, attributes his asthma to second-hand smoke, and asked legislators at a public hearing for the same protections afforded most other workers in Connecticut.

By law, the rest of Connecticut’s public spaces and major work places have been smoke free since 2003.

“The public health side of this is very simple,” said Representative Elizabeth B. Ritter, a Democrat of Waterford and co-chairwoman of the public health committee. The tribes do not contest the dangers of second-hand smoke.

But most political odds-makers are betting against the ban. Too much money is at stake at a time when Gov. M. Jodi Rell and the General Assembly are scratching for every dollar. With tax revenues falling, the Rell administration estimates the state is facing a shortfall of nearly $8 billion over the next two fiscal years.

The legislature’s nonpartisan Office of Fiscal Analysis estimated that the revenue loss from a smoking ban was “potentially significant,” though it warned that the data from other gambling jurisdictions with smoking limits was inconclusive.

The governor’s eagerness to maximize casino revenues was evident in February, when she proposed permitting the casinos to sell alcohol 24 hours a day. Her office estimated that more alcohol sold would equate to more gambling, bringing the state another $5 million in annual revenue.

The idea was abandoned after a car leaving the Mohegan Sun at 3 a.m. collided with a van taking college students to the airport for an overseas aid mission. One student was killed. The State Police said the casino patron was drunk and driving the wrong way on Interstate 395 without headlights.

Ms. Ritter, who represents a southeast Connecticut district that sits between the two tribal casinos, said she was distressed to see legislators having to weigh public health issues against the risk of losing slot revenue in a bad economy.

“I think it’s horrible and sad — very, very sad,” she said.

So far, few legislators have been willing to go on record against the ban. The Public Health Committee approved the bill, 28 to 2. On Monday, the Government Administration and Elections Committee endorsed the measure, 8 to 3. The same committee plans an informational hearing on tribal sovereignty next month.

The bill has a long road ahead. Backers expect it to be referred to other committees, often a tactic legislative leaders employ to buy time or to keep a troublesome bill from consideration by the full legislature.

Mr. Blumenthal said the smoking measure is defensible under the compact, which requires the tribes to abide by public health laws that the state imposes on itself. He said the tribes would have the right to challenge the law in federal court, but not withhold slot revenue.

“There is no legally justifiable reason to withhold that money, except, of course, to put a gun to the state’s head,” he said.

The Mohegans said they were not averse to limiting or, perhaps, eventually banning smoking, but only under the terms of their compact with the state — through negotiation with the governor.

The tribe has already presented the governor with its smoking-mitigation plan, including a new ventilation system. Smoking is now banned from 90 percent of the Mohegan Sun, though from only 25 percent of the gaming floor.

“We have the right to write our own laws and deal with the governor of Connecticut,” Mr. Bozsum said. “The governor has my plan, and that’s who I deal directly with.”

Sovereignty is no small matter to the Mohegans and Pequots, two tribes driven to the brink of extinction, he said. Thirteen tribes in Connecticut went out of existence.

They are memorialized in a section of the Mohegan Sun, the “Hall of Lost Tribes.”

It is smoke free.

Source: Nytimes

Norway has proposed new ethical guidelines that will see its Government Pension Fund, Europe’s largest pension fund, exit tobacco investments and screen companies for climate and tax haven violations.

In addition, the NKr2,300bn (£233bn, €259bn, $344bn) fund plans to earmark NKr20bn for investments in “environmentally friendly” companies over a five-year period and possibly target “sustainable” growth in emerging markets.

The new rules are part of a series of reforms presented by the finance ministry in a white paper to parliament on April 3, concluding the most exhaustive review of the fund’s ethical guidelines since they were first introduced five years ago.

But critics say the fund should focus on making money instead of taking on more risk in emerging markets and imposing further restrictions on its portfolio holdings after suffering an unprecedented loss of NKr633bn on its investments last year.

“The main goal is to place the money so as to get the best possible return at moderate risk,” said Christian Tybring-Gjedde, a member of Norway’s opposition Progress party, the country’s second largest. “Now we see the government going away from that with more politically correct investments.”

Even Norway’s central bank, the manager of the fund, has expressed reservations over earmarking parts of the fund for special purposes, also known as “positive” screening. In a hearing note to the finance ministry, the central bank warned positive screening would mark a breach with the fund’s investment strategy, reduce its risk spread and expose it to more company-specific risks.

The bank drew specific mention to an analysis by Thore Johnsen and Ole Gjølberg, two Norwegian academics, which revealed positive screening led to poorer performance for socially responsible investment funds.

Norway’s finance ministry has defended the move as a long-term strategy. Although the NKr20bn fund would entail risk, it would also diversify the fund into new territories. Moreover, the ministry would place the same return requirements on the separate fund as the rest of the portfolio.

“The sum of the risk profile is responsible and will give a good return over time,” says Kristin Halvorsen, Norway’s finance minister. “We have a hundred years’ perspective.”

Pending parliamentary approval this June, the fund would start selling its shares in tobacco producers over a two-month period. The fund owned shares in tobacco companies such as Altria, Phillip Morris and British American Tobacco at the end of 2008, according to the fund’s last public report.

The fund also plans to introduce a new watch list for companies in the “grey zone” of exclusion and expand its active ownership policy to include environmental issues, such as climate change, and corporate governance problems relating to transparency and the reporting of payment flows involving tax havens. Companies not found to be in compliance with its ethical guidelines risk being put on the fund’s watch list and potentially excluded from its investment portfolio.

The fund has put companies under observation twice before, once with Monsanto with regards to allegations of child labour at supplier farms in India, and most recently Siemens, which last year paid more than $2bn to settle corruption charges in Germany and the US .

The fund has so far excluded 29 companies for production of anti-personnel land mines, cluster munitions, and nuclear weapons, as well as human rights violations and environmental damage.

The ministry separately announced it was working on new guidelines to limit risk in its active management, as well as an external review of the central bank’s risk management and active management.

This will provide the basis for a white paper in the spring of 2010.

Some black and minority ethnic (BME) communities have high smoking prevalence rates as compared with the general population. Rates are highest among Bangladeshi, Irish and Pakistani males.
It is therefore especially important that local authorities (LAs) and PCTs with significant BME populations carry out local mapping and joint needs assessments. They will then be able to tailor their services and promotions appropriately. Many LAs have chosen smoking as a key indicator under their Local Area Agreements (LAAs) and some have specific targets for reducing smoking prevalence within local BME populations.
There has been a wide range of innovative work to deliver NHS Stop Smoking Services to BME communities across the country. Specific guidance has been issued by Communities and Local Government (CLG) to highlight models of good practice and ways of increasing service uptake by smokers from local BME communities.93 A number of areas have been networking with local faith groups and using local multi-lingual media to promote NHS Stop Smoking Services. The growing body of health trainers, recruited from local communities, have also been referring smokers from BME communities to NHS, voluntary and private sector organisations.

Babies born to smoking mums find it harder to rouse from sleep, say Australian researchers who have probed the link between cigarettes and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

The Melbourne-based study found babies in homes where the mother smoked up to 20 cigarettes daily, during and after the pregnancy, performed poorer on arousal tests.

Associate Professor Rosemary Horne said the research shed new light on why smoking was emerging as a leading SIDS cause.

“With maternal smoking, even though these babies appeared perfectly well and healthy and normal, they did not have the same arousal patterns as those babies whose mums didn’t smoke,” said Prof Horne, scientific director of the Ritchie Centre for Baby Health Research at Monash University.

“They wake up less, and more of the arousals they do have don’t go right up to the cortex, so they don’t wake up.”

Prof Horne restricted her study to full-term babies of smoking mums who also reached a normal birth weight to prevent premature birth or low birth weight factors from confusing the results.

She recruited 12 mums who smoked routinely throughout and after their pregnancies, and monitored their babies at intervals from two weeks old to six months.

The babies’ urine was checked and traces of cotinine, a by-product of nicotine, were found confirming their ongoing exposure to second-hand smoke.

“It was apparent in the babies even though most of the parents said they smoked outside,” Prof Horne said.

No cotinine was found in the urine of 13 babies from non-smoking households, who were used as a control group.

All of the babies were put through a series of tests to see what would wake them up and this involved a puff of air, in rising pressure, shot at the nostrils of the sleeping infants.

“Their overall arousal was depressed,” Prof Horne said of the smoke-exposed babies.

“We know that nicotine does bind to receptors in the brain and it binds to receptors associated with arousal.”

Prof Horne said studies had indicated up to 70 per cent of children who die from SIDS have exposure to maternal smoking.

“If your face is covered by the bedding … either under a doona or face down, you can move. The babies who die from SIDS don’t appear to have done this,” she said.

“Arousal is crucial, and in these babies whose mums smoked between three and 20 cigarettes a day, it was modifying the arousal process in the brain.”