Tobacco.org

• Carcinogenic and endocrine disrupting effects of cigarette smoke and risk of breast cancer 

Interpretation Our results suggest that cigarette smoke exerts a dual action on the breast, with different effects in premenopausal and postmenopausal women. Our observations reinforce the importance of smoking prevention, especially in early adolescence, and draw attention to the timing of exposure in relation to susceptibility and refractory windows in the design of studies to investigate associations between environmental carcinogens or putative endocrine disruptors and risk of breast cancer.

Jump to full article »

• Rapid review / The prospects for immunotherapy in smoking cessation 

Conclusions

Animal studies suggest that a nicotine vaccine is a biologically plausible immunotherapeutic intervention that could be used to successfully assist cigarette smokers to cease smoking. It has several potential advantages over existing pharmacotherapeutic aids to smoking cessation: it sequesters nicotine in the bloodstream, thereby preventing it from entering the brain, it may have fewer side-effects than drugs that act on the CNS, and it is likely to have better compliance than oral drugs. Animal studies, and early clinical trials of a cocaine vaccine, suggest that trials of a nicotine vaccine are warranted for relapse prevention. A nicotine vaccine need not be perfect to reduce relapse to smoking. Its preventive use in adolescents needs to be approached with caution, and only after considerable experience in using the vaccine for relapse prevention in adult smokers. But concerns about raising unrealistic expectations of the preventive role of a nicotine vaccine in adolesence should not be allowed to undermine its potential value as an aid to relapse prevention and smoking cessation in adult cigarette smokers.

Jump to full article »

• CHR told to butt out of debate  

Misplaced zealotry on the part of the Calgary Health Region backfired on efforts to cement an earlier date for an all-out smoking ban, say some aldermen.

The aldermen and Mayor Dave Bronconnier have turned their guns on the CHR, saying they should butt out of the city's smoking debate and lobby the province to toughen anti-tobacco measures instead.

Ald. Barry Erskine said the CHR's push to protect adults from second-hand smoke, not just children as initially envisioned, galvanized resistance to that campaign.

"They kept moving the goalposts and it did them in," said Erskine, who called CHR officials "Machiavellian" in their attempts to widen the scope of the regulations.

"The ends justified the means and there was no ethical commitment to the original intentions."

Ald. Ric McIver said the CHR used provincial money from a government unwilling to legislate against smoking "to beat up on the city to further what should be a provincial initiative."

Jump to full article »

• NYSE, NASD Name Geoffrey Bible to Head IPO Panel (Update1) 

New York, Oct. 3 (Bloomberg) -- The New York Stock Exchange and the National Association of Securities Dealers named former Philip Morris Cos. Chief Executive Officer Geoffrey Bible to head a panel of executives investigating how Wall Street allots initial public offerings to investors.

Bible, 65, who retired from Philip Morris in August, will lead an 11-member panel that will propose rules to the Big Board and the NASD aimed at bringing integrity to the sale of IPOs that are in demand. The House Financial Services Committee on Tuesday said Goldman Sachs Group, Credit Suisse First Boston and Citigroup Inc. handed IPO shares to executives of companies that gave them banking assignments.

``We've assembled a committee of leaders representing all of the interests in the IPO process, from investors to investment bankers, from issuers to venture capitalists,'' NASD Chairman and CEO Robert Glauber said in a statement.

Jump to full article »

• TYRA-LUKENS: Mayor clears air on smoking issue 

There seems to be a fair amount of misinformation surrounding the City Council’s consideration of a smoking ordinance. I would like to take this opportunity to give a little history and discuss where things are going.

Contrary to the belief of some community members, the City Council did not raise this issue. Rather we responded to a petition from over 1,000 residents that asked us to consider implementing an ordinance that would reduce exposure to second hand smoke by restricting smoking in the workplace. . .

We mostly heard from our residents and business owners but in addition, we heard from people in Minnesota and around the country. We heard about health issues, impacts on business, smokers’ rights and the rights of people to breathe clean air and the right of government to legislate people’s lifestyles. The controversy surrounding this issue came as no surprise to any of the council members. As a direct observer of the process, I feel that council members received the information with an open mind and their positions evolved over the course of time.

Thus far the council reached consensus on five main points at our workshop on September 17. . .

But to be fair, the council should be portrayed as a group of elected officials who consulted their constituents on a difficult issue that many councils would not have had the political fortitude to address.

They studied the issue, debated the issue and finally, with an understanding of this complicated subject, worked toward a compromise.

Jump to full article »

• Ban to center on city property only 

Eden Prairie will not ban smoking in restaurants and other businesses. Instead, the City Council opted Tuesday night to begin crafting an ordinance regulating smoking on city-owned property such as buildings and parks. It also is eyeing ways to garner voluntary participation of smoke-free initiatives among restaurants and other businesses.

One way broached was forming a task force or panel that would, as Council member Ron Case described, pull restaurants into the cause of tackling an issue that has caused much divisiveness. He said voluntary participation offers a “golden opportunity” to bring the community together so it can take a lead role on the issue throughout the state. . .

If the council were to barely pass a total ban, Case said it could be overturned in January. And that, he theorized, could mean no other city would want to touch the issue for years to come.

Jump to full article »

• Nabi Biopharmaceuticals Reports Encouraging Preliminary Results Of NicVAX(TM) Clinical Trial 

Nabi Biopharmaceuticals (Nasdaq: NABI) today announced preliminary results of a phase I safety and immunogenicity trial of NicVAX(TM) (Nicotine Conjugate Vaccine), an investigational nicotine conjugate vaccine, in 20 healthy volunteers. Although the study blind remains in effect, analysis of blood samples from the participants receiving NicVAX shows that a single dose of NicVAX resulted in a rapid immune response and generated substantial amounts of nicotine specific antibodies. Local reactions to vaccination were mild to moderate, temporary and required no therapeutic intervention. Antibody levels were detected within 7 days of vaccination and were maintained or continued to increase through 60 days post-vaccination.

"While this trial remains ongoing in order to maximize the safety data collected, we are pleased to note the ability of NicVAX to rapidly stimulate the formation of sustained levels of nicotine-specific antibodies in vaccinated individuals," stated David J. Gury, chairman, president, and chief executive officer of Nabi Biopharmaceuticals.

Jump to full article »

• Hearsay 

And now, thanks to a delightful letter supplied to Hearsay, we have an extraordinary insight into the way they do things at R J Reynolds, one of the biggest tobacco companies in the world.

The letter is not new - dated March 17, 1999 - but it provides a unique look at the mentality of a couple of lawyers who make their living defending the tobacco industry. It was written by Daniel W. Donahue, deputy general counsel at R J Reynolds, and is addressed to Peter Coles at the London law firm Simmons & Simmons. . .

"Dear Peter, Enclosed is the Addiction Report. Unfortunately, it was marked with my office's receipt stamp before I had a chance to spirit it away from my secretary. I, thereafter, had it sealed in the envelope, returning it to your offices.

"I have interviewed all persons in my office, and can, thankfully, report to you that no one here has viewed any portion of it other than the cover page. I suppose it [is] possible that someone here may have caught a peek at the back of the binder, but I hope not.

"After sealing it in the envelope, I placed it in the trunk of my car and drove the automobile from the company garage and parked it on the street until the delivery people were ready to pick the envelope up.

"That was done to minimise the chance that anyone could contend that the report remained at RJR long enough to become part of our files.

"This has been a harrowing experience for us both. I believe we have averted disaster, but we'll never know when a troublesome discovery request may be served upon us.

"Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Jump to full article »

After sealing it in the envelope, I placed it in the trunk of my car and drove the automobile from the company garage and parked it on the street until the delivery people were ready to pick the envelope up. That was done to minimise the chance that anyone could contend that the report remained at RJR long enough to become part of our files. This has been a harrowing experience for us both. I believe we have averted disaster, but we'll never know when a troublesome discovery request may be served upon us. Let's keep our fingers crossed.
Daniel W. Donahue, deputy general counsel at R J Reynolds, in a 1999 letter to Peter Coles at the London law firm Simmons & Simmons, on something referred to as "the Addiction Report," according to an AFR article.

• Miller vowed to curb smokers in '01 quiz 

City Council Speaker Gifford Miller - who has coyly refused to back Mayor Bloomberg's proposal to ban smoking in all city restaurants in bars - made a written pledge to support similar legislation last year, the Daily News has learned.

During his re-election campaign, Miller signed a questionnaire promising to support legislation for smoke-free restaurants, bars, nightclubs, bowling alleys, bingo parlors and pool halls.

"The questionnaire is not the bill," said Chris Policano, Miller's spokesman. "The speaker has not yet come to a position on that bill ... He is respecting the legislative process."

Miller (D-Manhattan) is one of 18 sitting Council members who pledged during their campaigns to make virtually all New York City workplaces smoke-free.

So far, nine of those who signed the questionnaire and seven additional Council members are listed as sponsors of Bloomberg's bill.

That means, if all 18 Council members, including Miller, stick to their election-year promises, Bloomberg has already rounded up 25 votes - almost enough on the 51-member Council to enact the most sweeping anti-smoking legislation in city history.

Jump to full article »

• 'Smokin' ain't allowed in school' 

The U.S. Congress enacted the concept that school children have always known -even if they did not always obey it - into law in 1994.

The federal legislation bans smoking within any indoor facility used to educate children that receives federal funds.

So why is it still a problem? This is the question resident Chris Carroll is asking and demands to have answered.

He has vowed to fight against the unhealthy conditions students are forced to endure every day at Foran High School until the atmosphere changes.

Carroll, who recently lost his teenage daughter, Kylene, to a sudden respiratory illness, has been fighting the battle against smoking in the public schools since 1998.

Jump to full article »

• Antismoking Bill's Chances May Hinge on Personalities 

Relations between Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some members of the City Council have deteriorated to such an extent that Council leaders are warning that the mayor's prized antismoking legislation may be in jeopardy.

From the beginning, Mr. Bloomberg has made it clear that extending the city's antismoking law to small restaurants, bars and bar areas was a deeply held personal policy goal, like gaining control of the school system. But although the administration quietly lined up support from a few council members before introducing the proposal, the speaker, Gifford Miller, has yet to sign on.

Publicly, Council leaders say they are simply waiting for hearings and opinions from all interested parties before enacting a potentially sweeping law. "We're in the process of reviewing the legislation — there are some members who support it, there are other members who have concerns," Mr. Miller said yesterday. "What you try to do in this case is to strike the right balance, and you can't do that without having a thoughtful and deliberative process."

But privately, council members and their aides say that the growing resentment over the way Mr. Bloomberg approached the issue could stand in the way of the bill's passing. . .

And Mr. Bloomberg is taking the unusual step of recording radio ads produced by the Health Department in support of his bill, a move that is not sitting well with the Council. Asked about using the ads to promote his legislative agenda, Mr. Bloomberg said: "I don't know what legislative agenda you're talking about. If you mean saving people's lives, that is the Health Department's purpose. That's why they're there."

Some council members said that the fate of the measure, whether it passes, fails or is watered down, will depend in large part on how Mr. Bloomberg is getting along with Mr. Miller.

Jump to full article »

If [Speaker Gifford Miller] were to sign off on it, it would go. I think this bill is predicated solely on the relationship between Gifford and the mayor.
Unidentified NYC Council member.

• States Accused of Misspending Tobacco Settlement 

States with the worst tobacco habits and those that grow the plant spend the least on programs to reduce smoking, says a new study that shows most of the billions pried from Big Tobacco in 1998 aren't being spent as intended. . .

"As of now, from a public health perspective, the [agreement] seems to be in critical condition," says Dr. Cary Gross, a Yale University physician and lead author of the study. "When states are not investing their tobacco settlement funds in their tobacco control programs, the program funding suffers."

Previous studies have pointed out the failure of states to apply their share of the settlement to tobacco control. Gross and his colleagues showed that tobacco control programs aren't drawing much from other sources of funding either. Their findings appear in tomorrow's issue of The New England Journal of Medicine . . .

"It's sad, because it shows that the states with the greatest public health need are really doing the least to address that need," Gross adds.

The new study relies on data from 2001. However, the situation has only deteriorated since then, experts say.

Jump to full article »

• Tobacco-Control Projects Urged 

The 1998 tobacco settlement, which promised $246 billion to participating states to address smoking-related health needs, has been critical to supporting tobacco-control programs across the country, according to Yale University researchers. But only a fraction of the dollars flowing into state coffers are helping Americans kick butts, and states with the highest smoking rates are spending the fewest settlement dollars on anti-tobacco programs.

"The whole point is that these tobacco-control programs are cost-effective," said Dr. Cary Gross, assistant professor of medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, and lead author of the study in today's New England Journal of Medicine. "It's just ludicrous to say we want to use this money to build roads."

But roads and other state priorities seem to have benefited most from the funds. Gross and his colleagues found that while settlement dollars represented 55 percent of all spending by states on tobacco control in 2001, only about 6 percent of the settlement money was being used to combat tobacco addiction.

Jump to full article »

• Prop 4 wording angers foes / Plan for tobacco money doesn't spell out scholarship loss 

The wording of the most explosive issue on the Nov. 5 ballot -- changing how the state spends its $8 billion in tobacco-settlement money -- has angered its opponents, including Gov. John Engler.

Proposal 4 shuffles the money, to be paid over 26 years, into a nonprofit foundation for health care and anti-smoking efforts. Opponents say it also takes the money away from college scholarships.

Voters, however, may have a hard time figuring that out from the proposal's language, which Engler says "is closer to advocacy than explanation."

Hospitals, doctors and health organizations are fighting over the money with teachers, universities and an influential lineup of politicians, including former Attorney General Frank J. Kelley and former Gov. William G. Milliken. The well-heeled rivals could spend as much as $10 million, combined, in their efforts to influence Michiganians' opinions. . .

"You can't tell from the language that money is set aside for a private foundation," the governor said.

Leaders of Citizens for a Healthy Michigan, the proposal's backers, said Engler's gripes are part of a stop-at-nothing effort by bureaucrats to poison voter opinions. The wording is "the fairest depiction the (elections) bureau could have come up with," added Lori Latham, the group's campaign director. . .

Six weeks before Election Day, the two sides clearly are in full campaign mode.

TV and radio commercials touting the proposal already are airing in Metro Detroit. Opposition leaders have taken their case to newspaper editorial boards.

Jump to full article »

• Philip Morris Should Pay Smoker $20 Bln, Lawyer Says (Update2) 

Philip Morris Cos., the world's largest tobacco company, should punished with a $20 billion verdict for causing the lung cancer of a Newport Beach, California, woman, her lawyer said. . .

``If Philip Morris is given a free ride here or a slap on the wrist, it's a green light for fraud,'' Piuze said.

The jury's award of $850,000 last week is the lowest of the compensatory judgments in Philip Morris's previous three losses. The company faces more than 60 smoker suits in California and 1,500 nationwide. The $20 billion award sought by Bullock's lawyer would be more than 23,000 times the compensatory amount.

Philip Morris lawyer Peter Bleakley argued that much of the fraudulent conduct alleged by Bullock was already remedied by a $246 billion settlement with the states that imposed restrictions on how and where cigarette makers can sell tobacco products.

``What is the likelihood that Philip Morris could ever again get away'' with defrauding consumers about the health risks of smoking, Bleakley said.

Jump to full article »