Tobacco.org

• Effects of Timing and Extent of Smoking, Type of Cigarettes, and Concomitant Risk Factors on the Association Between Smoking and Subclinical Atherosclerosis  

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of timing and extent of smoking, type of cigarettes, and concomitant vascular risk factors (VRFs) on the association between smoking and carotid intima-media thickness (C-IMT) in a lipid clinic population. . . .

Conclusions-- In the present cross-sectional observational investigation, carried out in a cohort of patients attending a lipid clinic, consumption of light cigarettes does not reduce the atherogenic effect of smoking on C-IMT. The number of pack-years, cigarettes/d, and years of smoking are relevant covariates in evaluating the effects of smoking on vascular health. The presence of diabetes or hypertension strengthens the association between smoking and cardiovascular risk.

Jump to full article »

Minerva 

Smoking light cigarettes (with low nicotine, tar, or carbon monoxide content) did not seem to reduce the atherogenic effect of smoking on carotid intima-medial thickness in patients attending a lipid monitoring clinic. Thickness was highest in current smokers and lowest in never smokers, and it was positively related to the number of pack years in both former and current smokers. Diabetes and hypertension strengthened the association between smoking and cardiovascular risk (Stroke 2009;40:1991-8, doi:10.1161/strokeaha.108.543413).

Jump to full article »

Lawmakers may target ‘small tobacco’ for more  

During the recently adjourned 2008 regular session, the Legislature approved and Gov. Haley Barbour signed into law a 50-cent-per-pack increase on cigarettes to 68 cents. It appears budget negotiators are now considering an additional tax increase on the small cigarette-manufacturing companies.

Some call them “generic” cigarettes. House Speaker Billy McCoy, D-Rienzi, calls them “rabbit tobacco” companies, though, he admits that rabbit tobacco is a particular brand and might not be an accurate description of the companies that might be subject to an additional tax.

Barbour calls them the non-participating cigarette manufacturers or NPMs. They are the smaller companies that were not parties to the lawsuit filed in the 1990s by then-Attorney General Mike Moore against the big tobacco companies and they were not part of the ultimate settlement.

This year the governor has advocated that the smaller companies pay an additional 43 cents per pack.

“The purpose is to require them to pay in the same amount as those cigarette companies that pay Mississippi more than $100 million annually under the tobacco settlement reached in the ’90s,” Barbour said earlier this year.

Jump to full article »

拉萨市创建“无烟医疗卫生机构”, 医疗机构禁烟 厕所也不例外 

如果一个单位的办公室、会议室、大厅、通道等场所都不准吸烟了，那吸烟的人在烟瘾难耐的时候会想到哪里呢？没错，一定会去厕所抽烟。但现在，厕所也禁烟了。

Jump to full article »

LEVIN: A way to prevent tobacco-related deaths  

It is estimated that these measures will save hundreds of thousands of lives and save more than $150 billion in health care costs a year, impacting the lives of smokers and non-smokers alike who suffer adverse health effects from tobacco. And the law will help protect children from establishing a dependence on tobacco products.

For too long, tobacco manufacturers have taken advantage of loopholes in our legal and regulatory framework that allowed them to avoid commonsense regulations. By putting an end to their free run without regulation, this law will protect consumers and help improve the health of smokers and non-smokers across the country.

Jump to full article »

AVERY: Viewpoint: Lugar, Bayh deserve credit for protecting Hoosiers against Big Tobacco companies 

Last week, Indiana Sens. Lugar and Bayh courageously joined their colleagues in the U.S. Senate to pass landmark legislation giving the U.S. Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate the manufacturing and marketing of tobacco products. They deserve credit and our sincere gratitude. Because of their efforts, we are now closer than ever to reining in a rogue industry that has been able to operate unregulated for far too long.

There is no way to underestimate their historic action. Granting the FDA authority to regulate tobacco products and its marketing will reduce its deadly toll -- particularly on our nation's children.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco down but not snuffed out  

* President Obama soon will sign bill putting tobacco under FDA legislation

* The bill is a win for Philip Morris, anti-tobacco advocate says

* Grandson of R.J. Reynolds founder: Bill marks "diminished clout" of tobacco lobby . . .

Patrick Reynolds, whose grandfather founded the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., said the passage of the bill "marks the diminished clout of the tobacco lobby on the Hill."

Stanton Glantz, a longtime anti-tobacco advocate and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, said the public health community has made "gigantic progress" over the past few decades, but he sees the FDA bill as a win for Philip Morris USA, the nation's biggest cigarette company.

At last week's annual National Conference on Tobacco or Health, a large anti-tobacco gathering, in Phoenix, Arizona, Glantz said only about half of the room applauded when it was announced that the legislation passed.

"People were talking about making lemonade out of lemons," he said. "Basically, the public health people cut a deal with Philip Morris." . . .

His biggest complaint: The bill creates a 12-member advisory board through which all regulations will flow. Tobacco industry representatives will hold three nonvoting seats.

"Putting three guys on this committee would be a little bit like putting three mobsters on the Department of Justice committee on organized crime," Glantz said, echoing the sentiment of other strong tobacco-control advocates.

Jump to full article »

• Big Tobacco: A history of its decline 

* Tobacco industry once known for big spending on campaigns, effective lobbyists

* As public opinion has turned on Big Tobacco, courts and Congress has too

* Despite moves against industry, "tobacco wars are anything but over," author says . . .

"My own view is that in many ways, the tobacco industry invented the kind of special-interest lobbying that has become so characteristic of the late 20th- and earlier 21st-century American politics," said Allan Brandt, dean of Harvard's Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

The industry was known for its giant spending on political campaigns and effective lobbyists. The industry's representatives often had experience in politics or close ties to major power players.

"Today obviously, that lobby is much less powerful and successful than it was a generation ago," said Brandt, author of "The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America." . . .

And just last month, in what Brandt considers "one of the most significant racketeering and fraud litigations" the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler's ruling in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations, or RICO, case, which found the tobacco industry guilty of engaging in a decades-long conspiracy to defraud the American public about the health risks of tobacco.

"Given the character of Kessler's findings -- and now the fact that her findings have been upheld by the appeals court -- this is really in a way a road map to tobacco regulation," Brandt said.

Stanton Glantz, a longtime anti-tobacco advocate and director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California, San Francisco, said the RICO ruling is what the public health community should use in its fight against the tobacco industry.

"I think it really can undermine the power of the industry politically by going to politicians and saying, 'These guys are crooks. They are crooks according to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Not just me,' " Glantz said.

Jump to full article »

METZGER: News flash: Tobacco products addictive 

A custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, dangerous to the lungs. --James I

IT TOOK only 305 years, but Congress has finally gotten around to acknowledging that the English king had it exactly right. A new law at long last puts tobacco under the Food and Drug Administration. Despite the industry's past denials that nicotine makes their products intensely addictive, tobacco is now going to be regulated as what it is--an exceptionally dangerous drug.

It's certainly the most lethal addictive substance known . . .

Why the sudden about-face in the United States after decades of stubborn resistance to overwhelming evidence? As usual, the answer is: money.

The push for universal health coverage drew a legislative bull's-eye on tobacco. With the number of smokers way down, Big Tobacco no longer had the clout it could previously count on in Congress and state legislatures. . . .

What history shows is that when industries begin to pollute the environment, they can get away with it for decades, but not forever: They provoke their own regulation.

Jump to full article »

Science vs. Politics  

s the legislation that will bestow the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) with unprecedented authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products awaits President Obama's signature, Congress can expect a volley of litigation from the bill in at least one area: marketing and advertising restrictions.

"The marketing and advertising restrictions...will be subject to various forms of litigation by various parties," said Tommy Payne, executive vice president of public affairs for Reynolds American Inc. (RAI), during a Credit Suisse tobacco regulation conference call yesterday. "I'm aware that the Association of National Advertisers, the ACLU and the Washington Legal Foundation all intend to file their version of that litigation in fairly short order after signature by the president."

And don't count out RAI itself, either. "It is our intent to challenge some of those provisions," Payne said. "But we're also looking at, Are there other provisions in the bill that may be subject to legitimate litigation claims? We have not come to a conclusion on that yet."

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Golden Leaf 

(Sunday's Commentary section will feature columns from two tobacco companies with strong local ties -- and different perspectives on the regulation bill.)

On the other hand, we remain squeamish about all heavy-handed regulation that restricts free speech, including commercial speech. Because limits on tobacco advertising are widely accepted and have been in place for decades, the actual damage will be minimal. Still, it's always worth protesting whenever the First Amendment takes a beating -- especially if free speech is under assault for the noblest of intentions.

We'll also note that tight regulation often brings even more joy to corporate executives than it does to reformers. As a general rule, government restrictions tend to squelch competition and benefit the biggest players in the market. Whether that will be the case with FDA oversight of tobacco remains to be seen. But we wouldn't be surprised if that happens. We'll take some consolation from the likelihood that Richmond's own Philip Morris USA could well be the biggest beneficiary.

Jump to full article »

EDITORIAL: Controlling tobacco  

The federal government at last has given itself the authority to regulate tobacco at a level appropriate to its dangers.

What a long and tortured path it has been. . . .

the tobacco industry and its supporters have fought a skillful, if unholy, battle to limit legal and political efforts to hold the industry accountable for the carnage caused by the intended use of the aggressively marketed product. Though that toll has been put at premature death for fully half of tobacco users, the industry accomplished a considerable lag between the accumulating understanding of tobacco and what might be considered an appropriately parallel recognition by courts and legislation. . . .

It would be as premature as the death of half of all smokers to declare victory in the war against tobacco.

For one thing, the product is still legal and still contains one of the most addictive substances known, making eradication of this scourge a very tall order, indeed.

Further, above and beyond the remarkable advantage of selling a physiologically addictive product, the tobacco industry independently has proven remarkably resourceful in finding new ways to market its product. In that regard, the fact that Altria Group, the biggest tobacco firm in the nation, supported the legislation is hardly comforting.

Jump to full article »

Iron will and good health key to giving up cigarettes 

reports the German Centre for Addiction Questions, one in every four German adults continues to smoke. Quitting is easier said than done. The problems are often underestimated, says Rainer Mathias Dunkel, a doctor of psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy in Wiesbaden. The danger of relapse is very high.

Men aged 35 to 45 are the most likely to smoke. In general, people have their first puff at age 13. But the number of young smokers is on the decline.

"In 2001, about a third of all 12 to 17-year-olds smoked. In 2008, it was 15 per cent," says Marita Volker-Albert of the German Federal Centre for Health Questions in Cologne.

Weaning people off nicotine has shown some promise in patients who suffer greatly from breathing problems, lung infections or recurrent illness.

It's best to try to find some help when on the path to becoming a non-smoker. There are numerous books on the topic, along with self- help groups and telephone hotlines.

The internet is another good place to go

Jump to full article »

Proposal to ban tobacco displays an 'unproven gimmick'  

THE Scottish Government's proposal to ban tobacco displays were yesterday branded an "unproven gimmick" by retailers.

Members of the Tobacco Retailers Alliance hit out at the proposal as the results of a survey were disclosed.

The survey suggested 75 per cent of small shopkeepers in Scotland believe the display ban will directly threaten their business, while 89 per cent said they believed the government had not listened to their opinions.

And six in every ten retailers are worried that the display ban will take trade away from them to larger stores.

The poll questioned 83 Scottish retailers, as part of a wider UK study, and found 54 per cent of them believe the display ban may increase retail crime.

Jump to full article »

Social- and Behavioral-Specific Genetic Effects on Blood Pressure Traits: The Strong Heart Family Study  

Conclusions--Our findings suggest that behavioral and socioeconomic factors can modify the genetic effects on blood pressure phenotypes. Accounting for context dependent factors may help us to better understand the complexities of the gene effects on blood pressure and other complex phenotypes with high levels of genetic heterogeneity.

Jump to full article »