Tobacco.org

• Editorial - Lebanon has yet to tackle killer smoke 

Even though many other countries have already passed Lebanon by on the issue, and even though a conference blooming with well-meaning rhetoric is no guarantee of future action, it certainly was praiseworthy for the Health Ministry and its National Tobacco Control Program to agitate last week for a comprehensive ban on smoking in public places.

Before even addressing the stale arguments over whether a ban would encroach on personal freedom, a prohibition makes sense purely to keep more humans alive and cut health-care expenses from this country's already catastrophic budget . . .

In case any doubt remains over the meaning of universal protection, we only have to note the smoking bans lately adopted in Bahrain, Syria, Israel, Iraq, Qatar, Turkey and the UAE. Put another way, Lebanon has now fallen behind all those countries on a major human-rights issue - yes, Lebanon has fallen behind Syria in liberating its citizens to be free of murderous second-hand smoke in public places.

But we here in our glass house at The Daily Star should not be the first to cast stones. To illustrate the hurdles a welcome and overdue ban would face, we at the newspaper enjoy a smoke-free work environment - until 9 p.m. Even this would-be watchdog of the public interest seems to respect human rights only some of the time.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Waiting On The SGA 

SGA finally returned from its fall recess this week to debate the Hopkins Kicks Butts (HKB) proposal to ban smoking on campus . . . Wait, was it not in recess? Has it been meeting all year? . . .

Still, after this page published a condemnation of the attempted campus-wide smoking ban by HKB last week, it was nice to see a resolution debated, even if it was tabled, at this week's SGA meeting.

Unfortunately, the response came a little late to save some Hopkins events, such as Hookah and Hemp on the Beach. Their currently unpassed resolution states that "the SGA is also strongly opposed to the imposition of a fine on smoking and a ban on events that promote tobacco" citing the limiting of the "expression of rights" of other student groups as reason for their lack of support for the HKB proposal. Too little, too late.

Had SGA been more decisive at an earlier date, perhaps this event would have been saved. Instead HKB has been allowed to speak on behalf of students without an opposition voice until last week's editorial.

Jump to full article »

Debate on public health - Our opinion: E-cigarettes pose risks  

All the public has to go on now is the word of the product's marketers. Before consumers inhale something that gives them "vapes" of highly addictive nicotine, they might want an independent authority testing the product to see what's in it.

But soon after the Food and Drug Administration tried to assert its authority over e-cigarettes by detaining some shipments at the border, two distributors sued, claiming that the FDA has no power to regulate the product as a drug-delivery device.

While both sides await a federal judge's ruling, e-cigarettes are on the market (kits with the e-cigarette and nicotine cartridges generally sell for $70 to $150). And contrary to the old adage, what you don't know can hurt you. Among the reasons to be wary:

— Most e-cigarettes are made in China . . .

— Despite protests from the Electronic Cigarette Association that its members don't make claims about helping smokers quit, plenty of sellers make far more outrageous health claims. In recent weeks, one marketer claimed e-cigarettes reduce the risk of heart disease and touted an endorsement by a physician-and-nurses group. Another website, which says it reviews e-cigarettes, went them one better: It claims, based on a 1942 study, that an ingredient in e-cigarettes could prevent flu and other respiratory diseases.

It is conceivable e-cigarettes might be a valuable tool for weaning some smokers away from a deadly habit. But without the testing and clinical trials opposed by marketers and their allies, no one will ever know.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: North Carolina goes smoke-free. Why can’t we?  

The logic of restricting smoking in public places is undeniable. The overwhelming majority of people don’t smoke. They have the right to breathe clean air, not someone else’s dangerous and dirty tobacco smoke. Smokers argue that markets, not the government, should dictate how business is conducted. It’s a specious argument. We don’t allow companies to spew poison into the air or water simply because they can make money doing it and their customers don’t object. The U.S. Surgeon General reports that secondhand smoke kills about 38,000 people every year and sickens hundreds of thousands of others. Restaurants and bars are among businesses that are least likely to provide health insurance to their employees, so when their workers get sick from the effects of secondhand smoke, the rest of us get stuck with the tab for their care. Workplace smoking may be good for tobacco companies’ bottom lines, but it is hazardous to the rest of us. Non-smokers on Tobacco Road in North Carolina soon will have more rights than non-smokers in Missouri. This is crazy.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smokeless cigarettes in need of more tests 

BACKGROUND: E-cigarettes, which convert nicotine directly into vapor, are becoming quite popular these days.

CONCLUSION: But the jury is still out on whether these smokeless cigarettes are any safer than the more traditional version. . . .

The e-cigarette industry's effort to block FDA intervention suggests it has something to hide, even if that's not the case. If the products really are a safe alternative to cigarettes, the industry should welcome the FDA's interest.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Drugs: Prejudice and political weakness have rejected scientific facts  

The sacking of David Nutt for insisting on the probity of scientific evidence that did not correspond to political exigencies has a significance well beyond the drugs debate. The essence of democracy is evidence- based argument, reason and genuine deliberation. Of course there will be a passionate clash of values and priorities, but if we cannot accept the facts we descend into a shouting match between rival prejudices.

This is not the first time the government has shown its unwillingness to accept the primacy of science in the debate over drugs. . . .

Britain is losing its way, unmoored from its tradition of fair play, debate and respect for facts. Nutt's sacking was another milestone in Britain's progression from a great Enlightenment country into a place where prejudice reigns. Big Media has played its part, but so have timid, callow politicians. The dismissal demonstrates how profoundly disfigured our politics is becoming by a political class unwilling to stand up to the way public opinion is being manipulated.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Vote Yes on Proposition N.  

About 60 percent of Americans -- 175 million people -- now live in communities that restrict smoking in public places.

On Nov. 3, voters in St. Louis County can add the county's nearly 1 million residents to the list by voting for Proposition N. That would protect the right of nonsmokers to breathe clean air in enclosed public spaces, including restaurants and bars.

Approval would trigger a similar ban in the city of St. Louis. The city's Board of Aldermen approved the ordinance Friday, contingent on passage of the county ban. . . .

The report confirms what the U.S. surgeon general and scores of peer-reviewed studies have concluded: Clean indoor air laws reduce the incidence of heart disease and heart attacks.

. . .

Proposition N is less comprehensive than clean air laws in Illinois or Kansas City, which means it's not as strong as it should be. But it's much better than the current state of affairs.

More than 75 percent of St. Louis County residents are nonsmokers. Their health shouldn't be held hostage to the minority's tobacco addiction.

Jump to full article »

Leading article: Unfair dismissal  

Professor David Nutt was sacked yesterday as head of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, accused Professor Nutt of stepping over the line which separates advice and policymaking in a public lecture this week.

Yet it is worth looking at precisely what Professor Nutt said. . .

It is hard not to suspect that Professor Nutt's real crime in the eyes of the Government was not his interference in politics but the fact that his words embarrassed ministers.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Exemptions in Proposition N are unfair to local businesses 

On Nov. 3, St. Louis County voters will weigh in on Proposition N, which will ban smoking in enclosed public spaces, along with sidewalks and other outdoor spaces within 15 feet of the entrance to a public building. The ordinance would exempt casino gaming floors and bars that receive 25 percent or less of their gross sales from food.

We understand and support the public health initiative behind Proposition N. The risks posed by secondhand smoke are real and frightening, and we commend the measures taken by the county to alleviate unnecessary exposure to such risks.

However, we feel that the ban would be fundamentally unfair to local businesses because it discriminates between bars that serve food and those that don’t, and it favors casinos. . . .

A ban with fewer exemptions has become the norm elsewhere—in New York City and the state of California, smoking is prohibited in all public places—and we think that St. Louis should take a similar direction.

On this count, we encourage our readers to vote against Proposition N, and we encourage the County Council to go back to the drawing board, drafting a proposition that is fair to local businesses.

Jump to full article »

Our View: Flavored Cigarette Ban Baffles Old Consumers  

As of last week, the clove cigarette and many of its other flavored brethren like vanilla and chocolate are now contraband. If you want some cloves now, you may want to try to find shifty-looking guys in trench coats standing outside tobacconist’s shops.

Now that the regulation of tobacco products has fallen under the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, the types of cigarettes that are seen as “enticing children to smoke” are now being taken away.

We understand the logic behind this move, as many people who start smoking often begin their habit with flavored cigarettes. . . .

But, we can’t help but think that a kid who wants to smoke is still going to find a way to smoke, even if a flavored alternative is not available.

Part of growing up and becoming an adult is learning the decisions you make have consequences on your life.

If we allow the government to continue to ban products for the “safety of our children,” how long will it be before we see a ban on grape Kool-Aid, since it is well known to be the main ingredient of the dreaded “purple drank”?

In today’s day and age, anyone who doesn’t know that cigarettes will kill you is obviously somehow deficient and shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions.

For the rest of us, the choice is, and should continue to be, ours to make.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Contraband cigarettes are a menace to our kids 

The unchecked proliferation of contraband cigarettes in Canada is undermining government efforts to curb smoking, especially among youngsters.

A study made public this month said contraband cigarettes are gaining rapidly in popularity, at the expense of regular taxed cigarettes, among high-school students.

No wonder. The illicit ones are cheaper, and there's no pesky enforcement of age limits. . . .

High taxes do not automatically lead to a jump in contraband tobacco use, according to Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada. The western provinces had the highest provincial tobacco taxes in 2008, and the lowest percentage of contraband cigarettes. That's because Western Canada has less access than Ontario and Quebec do to sources of cheap contraband smokes. Quebec and Ontario tobacco taxes were far lower, but contraband took up a far bigger slice of the pie.

The solution is the same as it has always been: enforcement. All that's missing is political will.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: The Importance of Extinguishing Secondhand Smoke 

This issue of Circulation includes a meta-analysis of the impact of smoking bans on hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction.2 The findings further attest to the power of government interventions. . . .

A systematic review of 26 studies showed that smoke-free workplaces reduced smoking prevalence by 3.8% and the amount smoked by 3.1 cigarettes daily in those continuing to smoke, together constituting a 29% decrease in total cigarette consumption.19 One of the studies included in the meta-analysis2 found that acute coronary syndrome admissions were decreased in smokers as well as nonsmokers.7 Furthermore, rather than having a negative impact on businesses, smoking bans can increase patronage of restaurants and drinking venues.

Clinicians should advise their patients to avoid public places that permit smoking, and families should be counseled not to smoke at home or in a vehicle with patients. Healthcare professionals can also be powerful advocates, and research such as that described in this issue2 strengthens the case for government action.

Jump to full article »

Editorial: 'Option 2' best proposition for Waco smoking ordinance  

The Waco City Council is voting on a prospective smoking ordinance on Tuesday. The council will vote on whether to add additional restrictions to the current policies or to ban smoking altogether except in private locations and retail tobacco stores. Through either method, the council hopes to lessen secondhand smoke to non-smokers.

Waco's current smoking ordinance generally forbids smoking at indoor workplaces but allows smoking in bars, small food establishments and small businesses.

While The Lariat supports council's valiant effort to reduce secondhand smoke, passing an ordinance that completely removes the ability to smoke from every place except for homes, tobacco stores and outdoor areas would be too large of a detriment for some businesses.

Those that smoke have every right to patronize the same businesses as non-smokers. Instead of banning smoking altogether, council should take a closer look at what the council is calling "Option 2," an ordinance that is less strict in that it would ban smoking in restaurants and other businesses that do not have separate ventilation for its smoking parties.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: More medical support for smoking ban 

Greenwood's ban on smoking in restaurants and bars is being vindicated by yet another scientific study.

A recent report from the Institute of Medicine found that in locales around the world where smoking bans have been enacted, the number of heart attacks has dropped by 6 percent to 47 percent.

The report underlines what the U.S. surgeon general warned of in 2006: There's really no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Smoking out e-cigarettes  

E-cigarettes might help smokers quit by providing the long inhale -- and nicotine fix -- of smoking. Because the devices are smokeless, people could potentially light up at a restaurant or on an airplane without breaking any laws. But with their candy flavors and their image as relatively harmless, e-cigarettes provide a new way to hook customers -- including teenagers -- on nicotine. That could conversely lead to more smoking. Meanwhile, the long-term effects of breathing nicotine and propylene glycol haven't been determined -- not to mention diethylene glycol, an ingredient in antifreeze that the FDA has found in many e-cigarettes.

The agency wants sales of the devices halted until, as with other drug products, animal studies and clinical trials determine whether they are indeed safe. We agree. A check of Internet chat sites shows that the devices are regularly used by smokers trying to quit tobacco. Should the courts rule against the FDA, Congress will have to step in. With the ever-expanding peddling of nicotine in the United States, the public needs federal oversight of attempts to advance an addictive drug.

Jump to full article »