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.