Tobacco giants fight Australia over labeling law

Tobacco companies accused the Australian government of destroying the worth of their trademarks by forcing them to strip logos off cigarette packs as a court battle over the world's toughest laws on cigarette promotion drew to a close Thursday. There was no immediate ruling following the three-day hearing in Australia's High Court over the constitutionality of the country's strict plain-packaging laws, which ban tobacco companies from displaying their distinctive colors, brand designs and logos on cigarette packs in a bid to make smoking less attractive.

Cigarettes will instead be sold in drab, olive green packs, featuring graphic health warnings and images of cancer-riddled mouths and bulging, blinded eyeballs. The law takes effect in December. British American Tobacco, Philip Morris International, Imperial Tobacco and Japan Tobacco International have all challenged the new rules on the grounds that they violate intellectual property rights and devalue their trademarks.

The companies are worried that the law will set a global precedent that could slash billions of dollars from the values of their brands. The tobacco companies' main argument is that the government would unfairly benefit from the law by using cigarette packs as a platform to promote its own message, without compensating the cigarette makers. Gavan Griffith, a lawyer representing Japan Tobacco International, said the government was attempting to appropriate 100 percent of the back of each packet and 70 percent of the front.

"We say our trademarks are extinguished," he told the court in the capital, Canberra. Commonwealth Solicitor-General Stephen Gageler, representing the government, rejected that argument. "The suggestion that tobacco packets will become little billboards for government advertising is wrong," Gageler told the court. The law is about public health, Gageler said — not about the government acquiring intellectual property.

"On that argument, the tobacco companies for the last 40 years or so have been frogs slowly boiling, with the gradual taking of their property," he said. "This is nothing more than the prospective regulation of conduct in the course of trade." Gageler said the law was simply a product standard, along the lines of regulations requiring other potentially harmful substances such as rat poison to carry warnings about safe handling. In response, Griffith held up a package of rat poison before the court and noted the warning on the poison was far more modest than the graphic warnings required on cigarette packs. The court is expected to rule on the challenge later this year.

Judges seem wary of overruling tobacco judgment

A bid by tobacco companies to overrule a court judgment that they must do corrective advertising about the dangers of smoking received a chilly response from a federal appeals court Friday. The companies want U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's order overturned because a 2009 law gave the Food and Drug Administration authority over the industry, including power to require graphic cigarette warnings.

In 2006, Kessler ruled that America's largest cigarette makers concealed the dangers of smoking for decades, in a civil case the government had brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO law. In court filings, the companies — including Philip Morris USA, the nation's largest tobacco maker — say that the 2009 law "eliminated any reasonable likelihood that defendants would commit future RICO violations," thus making the need for remedies like corrective statements moot. Judge David Sentelle, one of three judges on the appeals court panel, told a lawyer arguing for the tobacco companies that the logic in their case "escapes me." "Your client is here because they didn't obey the law," he said.

The attorney, Miguel A. Estrada, argued that the companies couldn't violate the law even if they wanted to, because of the oversight authority that the FDA now has under the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. He used an analogy of a car thief who is placed under house arrest, and so is prevented from engaging in the criminal behavior. But Judge Laurence H. Silberman, like Sentelle an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, had a quick rejoinder, wondering if "there's evidence you've broken out of your house."

Estrada said that even if one assumed the tobacco companies were run by "black-hearted people," they won't have an opportunity to violate the law now. In a separate case, some of the tobacco companies in this case — although not Philip Morris — are challenging the 2009 law's authority for the FDA to require the companies to use graphic cigarette warning labels. The nine graphic warnings proposed by the FDA include color images of a man exhaling cigarette smoke through a tracheotomy hole in his throat, and a plume of cigarette smoke enveloping an infant receiving a mother's kiss. A federal judge in Washington has ruled the FDA's proposed warnings violate First Amendment free speech protections and he has blocked their implementation.

That case has been appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the same court from which the three-judge panel in Friday's case was drawn. Sentelle told the tobacco lawyer that the companies are trying to get rid of the very law that they've cited in this case. And he noted that the 2009 legislation specifically says that nothing in the law should be construed to affect any action pending in court. Kessler, the judge who ruled against the tobacco companies, has said she wants the industry to pay for broadcast and print ads, but has not said what corrective statements should be included in them.

The government wants the companies to admit that they lied to the public about the dangers of smoking and to pay for an advertising campaign of self-criticism. The companies have argued the statements are inflammatory, inaccurate and "designed solely to shame and humiliate" the companies. The defendants in Kessler's corrective statements case include Philip Morris USA's parent company, Richmond, Va.-based Altria Group Inc.; Greensboro, N.C.-based Lorillard Inc., and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc., based in Winston-Salem, N.C. Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/20/judges-seem-wary-overruling-tobacco-judgment/#ixzz1sx8MytdG

Law on tobacco packaging hailed

The Commerce and Industry Ministry represented by the Directorate-General of Specifications and Standards in collaboration with the GCC Standardisation Authority yesterday organised a seminar on the mechanisms for implementing the GCC executive bylaw on tobacco packages products. The opening ceremony was held under the auspices of Dr Said bin Khamis al Ka'abi, Chairman of the Public Authority for Consumer Protection, in the presence of a number of experts in the field of specifications and standards from the GCC countries. Saud bin Nasser al Khusaibi, Director-General of Standards and Specifications at the Commerce and Industry Ministry said approving the technical bylaw for the tobacco packages is a positive step to curb the growing consumption of tobacco in the Gulf Region. Mohammed al Dablan, Representative of the GCC Standardisation and Specification Authority, said that the Gulf specifications outline the technical bylaws and requirements that should be met by these products.

The fight for plain packaging of tobacco

The sovereignty of countries should be absolute and not influenced by multinational companies with complex accountability. This laudable move towards plain packaging must not be derailed by veiled tactics from companies with vested interests. Only then can progress be made to tackle tobacco-associated diseases, which are largely preventable, but mostly lethal. After a recommendation from the 2009 report of Australia’s National Preventative Health Taskforce, on April 29, 2010, the Australian government announced plain packaging of tobacco products would be fully implemented by July 2012. Australia was the first country in the world to set a deadline. ASH Australia and others hailed the decision as a major step in the fight against tobacco. In the lead-up to Australia’s 2010 federal elections, the three major tobacco companies (BAT, Philip Morris, Imperial) poured $5 million into a misleading mass media ad campaign against plain packs, fronted by hastily-formed “Australian Alliance of Retailers” (AAR). ASH and other groups, and six Australians of the Year condemned the AAR campaign, urged all parties to honour the July 2012 commitment. The ALP and Greens reaffirmed support; the Liberal/National parties agreed to “consider” it. Meanwhile the campaign split the retail sector. Major supermarket Coles dissociated themselves from it. Woolworths followed, repudiating retail groups’ “deceptive behaviour”; one umbrella group, the Australian Association of Convenience Stores, also withdrew. Health groups including ASH wrote to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission objecting to the “misleading and deceptive” campaign and noted the AAR was hastily formed with a sole shareholder and sham address, and that the campaign was from the tobacco industry, not small retailers.

Suspect done in by cigarettes - and bad timing

A Michigan detective can credit legwork, luck and one man's bad habit for his latest arrest. A Traverse City police detective went to a local gas station Thursday to show clerks a surveillance video image of someone accused of stealing a woman's credit card a week before. The man Detective Kevin Gay was looking for was buying a pack of cigarettes there.

 Capt. Brian Heffner, who leads the detective bureau, said a chance encounter like this is rare but welcome. "The odds are definitely against this happening. ... On the exact day and time he's in there, the suspect is buying a pack of cigarettes," Heffner told the Traverse City Record-Eagle for a story published Saturday. The man, 51, was arrested and faces charges of unlawful use of a credit card, the newspaper reports. Police said the suspect had used the credit card at two area stations, including the one where he was nabbed.

Japan Tobacco: Executive Deputy Pres Koizumi To Become New Pres

-- Japan Tobacco Executive Deputy President Mitsuomi Koizumi will become president and chief executive effective approval at board meeting this summer -- Current president and CEO Hiroshi Kimura will become chairman, while current chairman Yoji Wakui will resign -- The new management team will be the first not to have former finance ministry official as chairman or president

Wrightsville Beach residents press for smoking ban

Advocates of a smoking ban on a North Carolina beach are not giving up even though the local governing board just rejected the proposal last month.
The StarNews of Wilmington reported (http://bit.ly/HHz3H9) that advocates of the ban at Wrightsville Beach turned over a petition supporting a ban to the Board of Alderman on Thursday.

Town rules allow a petition to go before the board to pass an ordinance. The petition must have the signatures of at least 35 percent of voters from the last regular election.

Organizers needed to collect 211 names and say 242 people signed the petition.

Mayor David Cignotti says he'll turn the petition over to the New Hanover County Board of Elections so it can verify the signatures.

Cigarettes may have to be sold in plain packets following public consultation

Cigarette packets could be stripped of all branding following a consultation beginning on Monday, the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has revealed.

The minister told the Times that he was "open minded" about putting the idea of plain cigarette packaging to the public, but added: "We don't work in partnership with the tobacco companies because we are trying to arrive at a point where they have no business in this country."

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the campaigning charity Action on Smoking and Health, said on Thursday night: "The consultation is just the first step, putting us in pole position to be the first European nation to put tobacco in plain, standardised packs.

"Cigarettes are not like sweets or toys and should not be sold in fancy, colourful packaging which makes them appealing to children. Cigarettes are full of toxins and cause fatal diseases: plain, standardised packaging makes this explicit."

But pro-smoking group Forest, the Freedom Organisation for the Right to Enjoy Smoking Tobacco, has launched a Hands Off Our Packs (Hoops) campaign.

Director Simon Clark has described plain packaging as "the persecution of a minority lifestyle choice". He said: "Plain packaging is yet another attack on retailers and adult consumers."

The move comes a week after a law on tobacco promotion in England came into force, requiring all large shops and supermarkets to cover up cigarettes and hide tobacco products from public view.

Lansley, who said there was "no harmless level of smoking", added that the ban on displaying cigarettes was part of a move to ensure "we no longer see smoking as a part of life".

Why cigarette pricing can go the liquor way

If you were unhappy with paying Rs 200 more for a Teacher’s Whisky bottle in Mumbai compared with Delhi, you are about to get a lot angrier if you are a smoker too.While your premium puff has already becoming more expensive, you may soon be charged more for a smoke, depending on which state you live.

According to this Business Standard article, ITC, the dominant player in cigarette making, is likely to consider state-specific pricing for its brands too, thanks to Union Budget 2012.
Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee decided to introduce an ad valorem duty of ten percent on cigarettes with a length of over 65 millimetre, in addition to the existing specific duty on these products. An ad valorem duty is based on the sale value of the product.

In India, currently, cigarettes of 65 mm, 73 mm, 83 or 84 mm, 93 mm and 100 mm length are sold. The ad valorem duty would be chargeable on 50 percent of the retail sale price declared on the pack.

Given that various states also charge different rate of value added tax, manufacturers may just be forced to charge different rates for cigarettes across India.

“The highest VAT rate is in Rajasthan at 50 percent while the lowest at 12.5 percent is in Arunachal Pradesh,” said the Business Standard article.

Industry analysts think that cigarette makers might consider introducing cigarettes in the less than 65 mm category to beat the tax.

At present, the 65mm and above range constitutes the entire range of ITC’s portfolio. ITC has already hiked the prices of its brands —Navy Cut, Gold Flake, Classic, Classic Milds etc — by 10 to 15 percent. A pack of Classic Milds, which earlier cost Rs 110, now costs Rs 120, while the price of a single cigarette stick has gone up to Rs 7 from Rs 6 earlier.

IDFC Securities in a note had earlier said the move of introducing ad valorem taxes could be a (potential) structural negative for ITC, as it would limit company’s power to continue expanding margins as it has done over the last few years.

“The hike illustrates the intent of the government to capture the pricing element in the domestic cigarettes business. The government is taking cognisance of the fact that companies like ITC have maintained profit growth despite contraction in volumes which limits the government’s revenue potential,” the note had said.

Are cigarillos any better than cigarettes for Jack White?

An interview with Jack White in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine quotes the musician as saying, “I quit smoking cigarettes like six years ago. ... These [the cigarillos he’s described as now smoking] are just baby cigars. I don’t inhale.”

That sounds as though Mr. White (of whom, I must disclose, I am a huge fan) thinks those small cigars may be better for his health than the cigarettes he famously used to chain smoke.

Turns out that’s not the case.

Richard Hurt, director of the Nicotine Dependence Center at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, explains, “There’s no safe tobacco product.” A cigarillo, he notes, “Is basically a little cigar, and it’s just as harmful as a cigarette.”

Hurt says that “if you’re smoking cigars and have moderate inhalation, five [regular-size] cigars a day is the equivalent of smoking one pack of cigarettes a day as far as risk of developing lung cancer is concerned.” Similarly, he says, a cigar smoker’s risk of developing pancreatic cancer is comparable to that of a cigarette smoker; in fact, he says, the increased risk of that deadly cancer is compared to nonsmokers is 60 percent for cigar smokers and 50 percent for cigarette smokers.

As for that “moderate inhalation,” Hurt says, “most cigarette smokers who change over to cigars or pipes end up inhaling more than they think.”

But you don’t need to inhale a cigarillo’s smoke for it to do you harm. Turns out that they (like cigars and pipe tobacco) contain higher concentrations of “free nicotine” — the kind that can pass through your body’s membranes — than cigarettes do. That means the nicotine can easily enter your body through the skin of your lips and the inside of your mouth, Hurt explains. On top of all that, “the nicotine content [of cigars] can be up to three times as high as in cigarettes,” and “the concentration of carcinogens is much more dense in cigar smoke than cigarette smoke.” That’s because in cigars, “tobacco is more tightly packed, and there’s more of it.”

Menthol smokers have more strokes: study

Among smokers, people who prefer mentholated cigarettes tend to have more strokes than non-menthol smokers - and this seems to be especially true for women and non-African Americans, according to a North American study.

The author of the study said that while no cigarettes are good for the health, the findings - published in the Archives of Internal Medicine - suggest people should especially stay away from mentholated varieties.

"They're all bad, but having said that, from a harm-reduction perspective this study does lend to the view of avoiding - at a minimum - mentholated types," said Nicholas Vozoris, a clinical associate at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.

For the study, Vozoris used information taken from U.S. health and lifestyle surveys that included 5,028 adult smokers. The surveys were conducted from 2001 through 2008.

Overall, about 26 percent of those participants said they usually smoked mentholated cigarettes, and the rest smoked non-mentholated ones.

Some experts say menthol makes it easier to start smoking and harder to quit because its taste masks the harshness of tobacco.

Of menthol smokers, 3.4 percent said on the surveys they'd had a stroke. That compared to 2.7 percent of the non-menthol smokers.

After taking into account smokers' age, race, gender and number of cigarettes smoked, Vozoris found mentholated cigarette smokers had more than double the risk of stroke compared to those who opted for non-mentholated cigarettes.

The difference was especially clear in women and people who reported a race other than African American on their surveys. Among those study participants, strokes were over three times more common in menthol smokers.

Vozoris told Reuters Health that the study couldn't prove that the mentholated cigarettes themselves caused the extra stroke risk, rather than some unmeasured difference between menthol and non-menthol smokers.

He added that women and non-African Americans seemed to be driving the link between mentholated cigarettes and strokes, but he wasn't sure why and the study didn't answer that either.

Choosing mentholated cigarettes wasn't tied to an increased risk of high blood pressure, congestive heart failure, chronic lung disease or heart attack compared to standard cigarettes.

Gordon Tomaselli, president of the American Heart Association and chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said it was interesting that the study showed an association between smoking mentholated cigarettes and strokes but not high blood pressure.

Vozoris said it's possible the menthol in cigarettes has an effect on the blood vessels that supply the brain in particular.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, smoking any type of cigarettes increases a person's risk of heart disease two- to four-fold compared to non-smokers.

Northborough mulls smoking ban on town properties

Soccer moms hoping to light up on the sidelines may soon be out of luck in Northborough.
Health Agent Jamie Terry said the Board of Health next month will hold a public hearing on “significant” changes to the town’s tobacco regulations that would ban smoking altogether outside Town Hall, the police and fire stations, the library, the senior center, Ellsworth McAfee Park, Assabet Park and the Memorial and Casey baseball fields on East Main Street.
The plan is still a draft, she said, but is supported by the board in an effort to respect the health of non-smokers who use those properties or fields.
“The biggest impact, I think, will be the fields,” Terry said. If smoking data from the state is any indication, she said there should be support in town for the idea.
“I’m hopeful that given only 12 percent of the population smokes, 88 percent will find this to be a benefit,” she said.
The ban would include any “nicotine-delivering device,” she said, including chewing tobacco. It would also extend to electronic cigarettes, which have come under fire from anti-smoking groups as possibly unsafe and appealing to children.
Terry said the board’s prime focus is to protect the health of those who do not smoke, not to punish those who do.
She said it does not appear that the board will look to ban the sale of tobacco in pharmacies — something Southborough and Wellesley have already done and that the board had been considering for some time.
Ban proponents argue that businesses who purportedly exist to sell items to help one’s health shouldn’t also be selling deadly products like cigarettes.
Opponents in the business community argue that the ban won’t curb smoking and instead puts pharmacies at an unfair disadvantage.
Terry said the majority of the board was against the idea, with the feeling being that the ban wouldn’t stop people from buying tobacco elsewhere.
But the board is proposing a tougher crackdown on establishments caught selling tobacco to minors.
Under current regulations, a store caught selling to a minor gets fined $100 for the first offense and placed on probation for one year. If it is caught selling a second time within the year, its permit to sell tobacco is suspended for seven days along with a $200 fine. The third offense is the death knell, resulting in the complete revocation of the license.

State’s foster homes may be next to go smoke-free

The “no-smoking” sign will be on for homes with foster children, if a bill in the Minnesota Legislature is passed.

The legislation would follow the lead of St. Louis, Lake and Beltrami counties, which already require foster homes to be smoke-free, said Jill Doberstein, Duluth-based program manager for tobacco control with the American Lung Association in Minnesota.

State Rep. Tom Huntley, DFL-Duluth, a sponsor of the bill, said it was introduced too late in the current session to be passed as stand-alone legislation. There’s still a chance it could be passed this year as part of an amendment to another bill, he said. Otherwise, there will be an effort to pass it next year.

“I think the general public, when this is explained to them, would support it,” Huntley said.

If the legislation became law, it would make Minnesota the 18th state to have a ban on smoking in foster homes for children, Doberstein said. St. Louis County, like some of those states, also prohibits smoking in vehicles used to transport foster children. The Minnesota legislation doesn’t go that far but could be amended to add vehicles, Doberstein said.

Before he was a St. Louis County commissioner, Steve O’Neil and his wife, Angie Miller, lobbied for the county ban, which Doberstein said went into effect in 2002. O’Neil and Miller drew from their own experiences as foster parents in advocating for smoke-free foster homes.

“When you get licensed to go into foster care, you have to go through all kinds of hoops and inspections,” O’Neil said. “So, for example, you can’t have peeling paint, because we would not expose children to lead paint.

We would not expose children to asbestos; you’re tested for that. All of which make perfect sense, right? So why would we want kids to be exposed to secondhand smoke all day while they were there, 24/7, for months?”

Randy Ruth, president of the Minnesota Foster Care Association, said the organization has addressed the issue in the past, but not this time around. The majority of foster parents probably would be on board with the legislation, he said.

“There’s always going to be that lifelong smoker that thinks it’s an invasion of their privacy,” said Ruth of Burnsville, Minn., who with his wife has cared for foster children for more than 40 years. “Personally, I would not object to it because I’m a lifelong nonsmoker.”

David Sutton, a spokesman for Philip Morris USA, said the nation’s largest tobacco company doesn’t plan any lobbying on the legislation. Philip Morris acknowledges that “secondhand smoke can cause conditions such as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, middle ear infections and sudden infant death syndrome,” Sutton said in an e-mail.

The tobacco company believes adults should avoid smoking around children, Sutton said, and that smoking should be banned in “areas occupied primarily by children, such as playgrounds, schools and day-care facilities.”

But it opposes what it calls “complete bans,” including in homes.

“In private residences and in other private places, the individual owner should determine the smoking policy,” Sutton said in his e-mail.

The state has a role to play when it comes to foster homes, Huntley said.

“We’re in charge of these kids, and we have to decide what kind of life they’re going to live in the foster care system,” he said. “And I think we have a responsibility to make sure they’re living in a healthy environment.”

The state’s taxpayers have a financial interest, O’Neil added.

“There are 8,000 kids in foster care in Minnesota, and they’re all insured by the state of Minnesota, more or less,” he said. “We’re paying their health-care costs. Do we want to subject them to secondhand smoke?”

The American Lung Association has polled foster-care providers in Aitkin and Isanti counties and so far found none who object to the proposal, Doberstein said. Even those who do smoke said they already go outside to smoke, and they still could do that if the bill becomes law.

St. Louis County didn’t see a decline in the number of foster parents as a result of its ban, O’Neil said.

The Surprising Effect of Exercise on Smoking

Q. I run and lift weights — but I smoke cigarettes, too. I don’t notice a problem with my lungs when I run. Am I better able to cope with the smoke because I’m physically fit?

A. Some people who smoke but exercise assume that strengthening their lungs by working out must cancel the negative effects of smoking. To a nonsmoker, this seems like a form of denial, or cognitive-dissonance, where a person convinces himself that a behavior is not as bad as it seems.

But a 2006 study in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention suggests that this rationalization might not be totally off base. Researchers followed more than 36,000 women for 16 years. They found that those who smoked, but who participated in vigorous physical activity at least twice a week, were nearly 30 percent less likely to get lung cancer than those women who were inactive. Women who participated in moderate physical activity at least two times per week were 23 percent less likely to develop lung cancer. These results held even after the researchers factored in how long and how much the women smoked.

Another study in a 2009 issue of the Journal of Women’s Health looked at more than 700 women who were suspected of having blocked arteries, or myocardial ischemia. The women reported their smoking habits and estimated their ‘exercise capacity,’ or their ability to participate in a variety of moderate and strenuous exercise activities.

About six years from the start of the study, those who smoked the most and exercised the least had the highest risks of experiencing a stroke, heart failure or other cardiac event. Those women who didn’t smoke but had a high exercise capacity had the lowest risks. Neither of these results is surprising, of course. But among smokers, those with the highest exercise capacity had significantly lower health risks than smokers who had a low exercise capacity. But the exercising smokers still had increased risks of a cardiac event compared to nonsmokers.

These studies suggest that exercising smokers are not totally off the hook. Your likelihood of getting a lung disease — or having a cardiac event — is linked to the number of cigarettes smoked over the years. And smoking at all does increase health risks. A 2009 study in the American Heart Association journal, Circulation, found that smoking as few as three cigarettes each day increased the risk of heart and lung diseases by as much as 72 percent.
But an increased disease risk is a long-term effect of smoking. In the short term, smoking actually impairs exercise performance — whether you are aware of it or not. One 1985 study in the Journal of Applied Physiology had healthy men smoke three cigarettes an hour for five hours and then perform an exercise test to exhaustion. Their cardiovascular function was impaired as seen by a decreased ability to utilize oxygen and increased “rate pressure product,” which is a marker of stress to the heart marked by an increased resting heart rate and increased systolic blood pressure.

The good news is that regular exercise seems to help people quit. So even if you think you can handle the smoking because you don’t huff and puff when you work out, try to find a new habit!

Do you have a health question for Martica? Send e-mail to experts@microsoft.com. Please include Ask Martica in the subject line. Each of our experts responds to one question each week and the responses are posted on Mondays on MSN Health. We regret that we cannot provide a personalized response to every submission.

Montana State campuses to go smoke free this fall

Montana State University campuses in Bozeman and Billings plan to kick the smoking habit this fall.
The Bozeman campus goes smoke free on Aug. 1, followed two weeks later by the Billings campus on Aug. 15.
"There is no right to smoke," Darla Tyler-McSherry, health educator with Student Health Services, told the Billings Gazette. "There is a desire to smoke. We aren't saying you can't smoke, just that you can't smoke on campus."
Some students are against the ban.

"What's next? No nachos?" said ex-smoker Stephen Samek. "Everybody should make their own decisions. I agree it (smoking) is not healthy, but I think it's a personal choice."
Currently, both campuses allow smoking 30 feet away from buildings. There are no restrictions on other tobacco products.
Other schools have already banned tobacco products. University of Montana campuses in Missoula, Butte, Dillon and Helena have bans in place, as does Fort Peck Community College in Poplar.
Sixty-one percent of MSU students voted for a tobacco-free campus in March 2011. A month later, 72 percent of employees voted for the ban on campus.
"There is a need and desire to quit this unhealthy habit," Tyler-McSherry said.
She said the current policy at the MSU-Billings campus is hard to enforce because of the difficulty in estimating 30 feet from a building. That meant people still had to walk through smoke from smokers around building entrances.

At the Billings campus, smokers will have to move to public sidewalks that border the campus.
Designated smoking areas are planned to the north of campus buildings at the College of Technology, which doesn't have safe places to stand along Central Avenue and Shiloh Road.
Across the nation in October 2011, at least 252 campuses were tobacco. There were 586 smoke free campuses.

Smoke signals of the very worrying kind

As the saying goes, you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. Three recent surveys prove beyond reasonable doubt – yet again, most would add – that notwithstanding the deleterious effects of active and passive smoking many still persist in causing damage to themselves and to those around them, including their most loved ones, such as children.

Last week, a study by Maltese doctors contained some shocking statistics about the effect of smoking on children. Thirty-one per cent of children aged between five and eight were passive smokers, followed by 51 per cent of 13- to 15-year-olds. Apart from more extensive exposure to direct and second-hand smoke, it has also been confirmed that smoking parents impart a “very bad example” to their children and induce them to start smoking themselves.
The study did have a silver lining, though. It results that passive smoking among teenagers is on the decline, indicating education could be bearing fruit.
May that be the case for the findings of an EU-wide survey, announced in the middle of this month, painted a gruesome picture of a stubborn cigarette smoker that could be in denial of the real effects tobacco has on one’s own health.

The research concluded that bloody images and alarming messages on cigarette packets seem to have done little to repel Maltese smokers. It does not appear that the messages escaped their attention – in fact, many of those interviewed could recall them – but most admitted they simply ignored the messages.
Worse, not even the “messages” one carries on one’s own body as a result of tobacco consumption appear to be that off-putting. A campaign that the Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Directorate launched in the last days of 2011 stresses the point that smokers can look between eight and 12 years older than they actually are because smoking actively ages one’s appearance.

Smoking results in the inhalation of a complex cocktail of poisons that lead to early wrinkles, bad skin and damaged hair.
Apart from the external and visible consequences of smoking, internal complications are legion and this results in avoidable death. Indeed, smoking is the commonest cause of avoidable death. It kills half its users: 650,000 persons in the EU alone annually.
This has been said before but the consequences of tobacco use can be so serious and tragic that they should be highlighted as often as possible.
Individuals usually start smoking through peer pressure and then become addicted because of substances added to cigarettes to encourage addiction. This leads to 11 times more people dying of tobacco in the EU than from traffic accidents.

Cancer, hypertension, stroke and heart attack are all caused or worsened by smoking. In addition, women who smoke are up to 40 times more likely to get a heart attack. The chances of smokers likely to have menstrual problems and find it more difficult to become pregnant as their fertility rate is reduced by about 28 per cent also increase. Smokers also become more prone to develop pregnancy complications and have babies with health problems.

Education, as was noted above, helps but perhaps the best way to discourage smoking is to make tobacco prohibitively expensive. Smokers should be heavily taxed for two reasons: to discourage tobacco consumption and the effects of second-hand smoke on others and to fund the treatment of the inevitable health problems that such self-destructive habits generate in both smokers and others, again, through second-hand smoke.

Tobacco Free Florida Week Underway

Each year, Tobacco Free Florida Week is an opportunity to educate and empower Floridians about relevant issues related to tobacco use in the state. This year’s focal point, secondhand smoke (SHS), is one of the issues that affects every single Floridian, according to a press release from Tobacco Free Florida.

The fourth annual Tobacco Free Florida Week runs from March 26 through April 1. Themed “Fresh Air for All,” the week’s events and messaging highlight the progress made in protecting Floridians from the harmful effects of SHS and look to the challenges ahead, as SHS continues to impact Florida’s health.

Secondhand Smoke

Despite the substantial decrease in smokers in the state and the growing trend of smoke-free policies -- both indoors and out -- many of Florida’s most vulnerable are still involuntarily affected by SHS’s harmful chemicals, hundreds of which are toxic and almost 70 are proven to cause cancer. Each year, approximately 2,520 non-smoking adults in Florida die primarily from exposure to SHS.

What the State's Surgeon General has to say:

“We are committed to protecting Floridians, especially children who sometimes do not have a voice. One of the most crucial ways to protect yourself and your loved ones from the dangers of SHS is to maintain a 100 percent smoke-free home,” said Dr. Frank Farmer, Florida’s State Surgeon General. “While a home should always be a safe place for children, the fact is that the primary place young children breathe SHS is in their own homes.

Outside of the home:

Florida residents benefit from Florida’s Clean Indoor Air Act (FCIAA), which was amended in 2003 to protect people from exposure to SHS and prohibit smoking in indoor workplaces. While the FCIAA protects many, countless Floridians are involuntarily exposed to the dangers of SHS in the nightlife industry, construction and other blue-collar industries while making a living and providing for their families.

The bottom line is that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS. Even breathing SHS for short periods of time, like at a bar or a nightclub, can be dangerous. When you breathe SHS, tobacco smoke immediately seeps into the bloodstream and changes its chemistry so that the blood becomes stickier, allowing clots to form that can cause major blockages in already narrowed arteries. Damage to the heart can be significant, if not deadly.

FDA Takes New Steps in 'Tobacco Epidemic' Fight

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued two separate actions today in the Obama Administration's continued bid "to help fight the tobacco epidemic and stop children from using tobacco."

The first draft guidance directs tobacco companies to submit the harmful and potentially harmful chemicals -- and the amount of each one -- contained in any tobacco product, as required by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The second draft guidance gives companies the information needed to submit applications to market or advertise modified risk tobacco products.

"These are critical steps in achieving the FDA's mission to protect the public's health," Dr. Lawrence Deyton, director of the FDA's Center for Tobacco Products (CTP), explained in a conference call this afternoon.

In line with the requirement to account for the ingredients in tobacco products, the FDA also established a list of 93 harmful and potential harmful constituents (HPHCs) that tobacco companies will be required to report for every regulated tobacco product sold in the United States. The agency's goal is to make the information on the amount of HPHCs in specific products available to the public in a consumer-friendly format by April 2013.

Of those 93 HPHCs, the agency has identified 20 that tobacco companies will be required to report this year. The remainder will be phased in over time, Deyton said. The first 20 include ammonia, nicotine, formaldehyde and carbon monoxide. The HPHCs include chemicals found in tobacco naturally and those generated when tobacco is smoked, said Dr. David Ashley, director of the CTP's Office of Science.

The second guidance follows the Tobacco Control Act's established scientific criteria that an applicant's tobacco product must meet before the FDA can allow the product to be sold and marketed as modified risk. It describes scientific studies and analyses an applicant must submit to demonstrate that the product will, or is expected to, significantly reduce harm or exposure to individuals, and benefit the health of the population as a whole.

"The law sets a high standard to make sure products marketed as modified risk actually are," Deyton added.

Let's quickly get synthetic marijuana off our streets

The Georgia General Assembly needs to keep the pressure on those who skirt the laws of this state to sell substances that can be potentially harmful to our youth and adults.

Lawmakers seem to be doing that with the passage of Senate Bill 370, which addresses all brands of synthetic marijuana.
As the law stands now, what essentially is synthetic marijuana can be sold legally in novelty shops and convenience stores and is in many places around the state.

What the new law does is outlaw the primary chemicals that go into synthetic marijuana, as well as anything else that might be produced from its active ingredients or their derivatives and marketed as a “fun-time” product for legal consumption.

Gov. Nathan Deal should not waste time getting this legislation off his desk and onto the streets. He should sign it ASAP and put it into effect immediately. Until he does, the substance will continue to be legal and readily available.

Anything that might encourage experimentation with real marijuana or harsher street drugs like cocaine and the ever popular crack cocaine does not need to be on the shelves where children go to buy candy.

And teens don’t need any more temptation or distractions than they already have.

Drugs remain the No. 1 destroyer of individuals and families. They also are behind much of the crime that occurs in this city and county ... There also is the cost to the victims and to the taxpayers, who must pay dearly to house these people in jail or try them or run them through drug court.

Tips From Smokers Campaign Begins

New anti-tobacco ads launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have hit Wisconsin airwaves as part of a national campaign– and are creating a buzz about the harsh reality of illness and the damage real people suffer as a result of smoking and exposure to secondhand smoke.

The ads from CDC’s “Tips from Former Smokers” campaign feature compelling stories of former smokers living with their smoking-related diseases and disabilities, including lung and throat cancer, heart attack, stroke, Buerger’s disease and asthma.

Currently around one in five adults in Wisconsin smoke and just under 18 percent of high school teens. Nearly 8,000 Wisconsinites lose their lives each year from tobacco-related illness.

“The campaign serves as an important counter to the $233 million that the tobacco industry spends to promote their products annually in Wisconsin,” said Marilyn Jenkins of the NW Wisconsin Tobacco Free Coalition, adding that it’s an uphill battle to take on the tobacco industry with its significant resources.

The state’s Tobacco Prevention and Control Program has had success in reducing the rates of smoking in Wisconsin despite facing severe cuts over the last several years. Wisconsin’s program is currently funded at $5.3 million a year. The CDC’s recommendation for funding in Wisconsin is $64 million.

“With decreased funding, we need all the help we can get,” said Jenkins. “I hope smokers look at these ads and decide to quit, and that young people see them and realize that the health consequences of tobacco use are immediate and deadly serious."