Tobacco.org

HABERMAN: New York City's In-Your-Face Antismoking Campaign  

Before too long, you may be forced to stare at a photo of blackened lungs, oozing decay, every time you go to the bodega for a quart of milk. We're trying to figure out where under the heading of quality of life to file this bit of news.

The photo is the latest idea from the city's Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, part of its nonstop campaign to acquaint the citizenry with the wickedness of smoking. Show smokers right there at the checkout counter how much gunk coats their lungs and maybe they will reconsider plunking down that Hamilton for a pack of cigarettes. That's the theory.

You might have thought that by now, even the most benighted smoker must know that the habit is destructive, no matter how satisfying in the short term. We've only had decades of government warnings on cigarette packs . . .

Well before the government first ordered those warnings, in 1964, cigarettes were routinely referred to as cancer sticks and coffin nails. Those were not intended as phrases of affection. . . .

The thing is, though, that despite his department's estimate that a million New Yorkers continue to smoke, most of us don't. Yet under the proposed new regulations, anyone who goes to the corner store will have to look at blackened lungs and possibly more. An assistant health commissioner, Sarah B. Perl, was quoted in The Daily News as saying that people are going to see what cancer of the mouth and the throat look like.

Really now, is it necessary to be subjected to such photos when all you want is a carton of orange juice? . . .

Why stop with cigarettes?

Why not require pictures of morbidly obese people at candy counters

Jump to full article »

Today in History  

Today is Tuesday, July 7, the 188th day of 2009. . . .

Ten years ago: In the first class-action lawsuit by smokers to go to trial, a jury in Miami held cigarette makers liable for making a defective product that caused emphysema, lung cancer and other illnesses. (The jury later ordered the tobacco industry to pay $145 billion in punitive damages, but the Florida Supreme Court in 2006 voided the award, saying each smoker's case had to be decided individually.)

Jump to full article »

Cost of a cigarette pack going up $1 

Florida's 2.6 million smokers will wake up to a new reality Wednesday when the cost of a pack of cigarettes zooms another dollar.

The Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco's 160 agents will coordinate efforts with counterparts in Georgia and Alabama and with Florida agricultural inspectors as they brace for a potential new wave of smuggling.

"Any time there is a lower tax in one state than another, this will be a problem," said Marie Carpenter, a bureau chief for the state Department of Business and Professional Regulation. "Auditors and agents will be working together to do investigative audits at the retail level."

Jump to full article »

Puritanism disguised as science 

I'm sitting in the corner of a bar, talking to author Christopher Snowdon and doing something almost unheard of in Britain these days: enjoying a cigarette under cover. Admittedly, it is a pretty open-air kind of 'under cover' in a specially adapted part of the Boisdale restaurant and bar near London's Victoria station; still, the novelty value is not lost on me.

We are here because Snowdon is launching his book this evening, a history of the anti-smoking movement that has been three-and-a-half years in the making. . . .

Tobacco is also popular with soldiers. Soothing, yet stimulating, it is just the ticket for those faced with the possibility of brutal death and horrifying injury. Snowdon quotes the US general John Pershing, who was asked what was the key to winning the First World War. 'I answer tobacco as much as bullets', he said, before urgently cabling Washington: 'We must have thousands of tons of it without delay.' By one reckoning, 95 per cent of the military used tobacco in some form during the First World War. . . .

While Hill and Doll's conclusions have been confirmed time and again, it is the link between 'passive' smoking and ill-health that has driven the debate in recent years. Anti-tobacco campaigns largely failed to make much headway when they simply called for prohibition or for a smoke-free atmosphere. As long as smoking only involved potential harm to the smoker himself, the irritation felt by some non-smokers was never considered enough to justify intervention and the restriction of people's smoking habits.

Then, changing the focus from harm-to-smokers to the alleged dangers of second-hand smoke for everyone proved crucial in building momentum for a variety of smoking bans. Yet, as Snowdon writes, the evidence of second-hand harm has always been flimsy. . . .

Snowdon is once more in demand and dashes off to sign books. I light up again. Funny how pursuing what should be nothing more than a bad habit can seem like a single, raised finger to those who want to restrict our personal freedom and micromanage our lives.

Jump to full article »

• Stressed, broke smokers struggle with habit  

For the Perrys and other smokers, the incentive to kick the habit has perhaps never been stronger. The economic downturn continues to wear on, and this spring smokers were hit with the largest federal tax increase ever on cigarettes.

But reason doesn't always rule out, says Dr. David Abrams, a clinical psychologist and executive director of the Schroeder Institute for Tobacco Research and Policy, which is part of the anti-smoking nonprofit American Legacy Foundation. "If anybody looked at the pros and cons and weighed the evidence, frankly, we shouldn’t have a single smoker in the country. But the brain's reward centers are very powerful, and they avoid logical reasoning. Seeking immediate pleasure is sometimes something you can’t stop yourself from doing."

But while experts do say they're seeing more interest in quitting, the support system is collapsing, as some states have exhausted funds for smoking-cessation programs that many smokers, especially lower-income folks, depend on when they decide to quit.

An estimated 45 million Americans smoke, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found last year that the U.S. smoking rate had dipped below 20 percent for the first time on record.

Jump to full article »

Reader Views: Will new federal tobacco regulations be effective?  

EDITORIAL: Regulation was overdue for tobacco products 

The effort to give the Food and Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco has been about as difficult as a typical person's battle to quit smoking.

But it was a major breakthrough when President Barack Obama signed the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act . . .

It would be nice to celebrate this breakthrough as the death knell for all the evil deeds of the tobacco companies. The manufacturers have been elusive, deceptive and uncaring about the effects of their products on unsuspecting customers. Sadly, the companies long ago began to see their viability in foreign markets. But at least it can be said that the United States has begun to see enough of this health hazard. Tobacco won't be eliminated, but it will be heavily regulated. The tougher regulation was a long time coming. It's a welcome sight.

Jump to full article »

New Hampshire Budget Falls Short in Protecting Kids from Tobacco; State Should Increase Cigarette Tax By $1 and Provide Funding For Tobacco Prevention Programs 

It is disappointing and a missed opportunity for New Hampshire's health that a budget conference committee today approved a budget that includes only a 45-cent increase in the state cigarette tax and provides zero funding for programs to prevent kids from smoking and help smokers quit.� This budget eliminates the miniscule amounts New Hampshire had previously been spending on these programs. New Hampshire can achieve much greater health and financial benefits by increasing the cigarette tax by $1 per pack and allocating some of the new revenue for tobacco prevention and cessation programs.

With the added revenue from the 45-cent cigarette tax increase, New Hampshire would receive more than $450 million in tobacco-generated revenue over the next two years from tobacco taxes and the 1998 state tobacco settlement, but will spend nothing to help smokers quit or prevent kids from starting to smoke. As a result, New Hampshire would rank last in the nation in spending on tobacco prevention programs despite the fact that tobacco-related illness costs the state $564 million a year in health care bills.

It is penny-wise and pound-foolish to shortchange tobacco prevention programs. These programs are proven to reduce smoking among both youth and adults, save lives and save money

Jump to full article »

Investigative Reports Find Growing Ties Between Cigarette Smuggling and Terrorist Organizations, Underscore Need for Strong Treaty to Combat Problem  

As nations meet in Geneva this week to negotiate an international treaty to combat cigarette smuggling, new investigative journalism reports released today find an increasing link between the illicit tobacco trade and funding for terrorist organizations. The investigations, which also detail the world's largest tobacco smuggling hubs, underscore the vast scope and seriousness of the illicit tobacco trade and the urgent need for the nearly 150 nations meeting in Geneva to quickly negotiate the strongest possible treaty to combat this problem.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Too far on tobacco  

Regarding the June 18 letter "Tax tobacco to death": How fair is it to place an entire tax increase burden on one group? This is just another freedom that is being eliminated, another product and manufacturing base that are going to be sent overseas. Taxes already have been increased three-fold by the federal government. The FDA will soon take over regulation. This is enough controls placed on one item!

Why not tax food by its fat content or put a $1 per item tax on fast food?

Jump to full article »

McFEATTERS: The White House's big smoke screen 

President Flawless, it seems, has a flaw.

The White House has been opaque about whether Barack Obama has quit smoking, as he promised his wife, Michelle, when she agreed to a presidential race. During the campaign, reporters occasionally saw him mooching a cigarette off an aide, but now that he's president, he's only seen when he wants and how he wants.

Maybe Fox News' ambushers are skulking in the shrubbery in case Obama steps out of the Oval Office for a quick smoke, but if so, they've come up empty. . . .

During the campaign, it was said he smoked five a day. Apparently, he has improved. He said he is not a daily smoker, and doesn't smoke in front of his children or his family.

Which raises the question: Where does he smoke? . . .

A best guess would be Reggie Love, his "body man," which is an actual title in Washington for an aide assigned to look after all the president's personal needs. The body man typically has on hand a supply of breath mints, cough drops, aspirin and -- maybe -- cigarettes.

If Obama is down to, say, one cigarette every other day or so, there doesn't seem to be any reason he can't quit altogether. But maybe there's a method in his lapses. He might be stealthily stealing yet another voting bloc from the Republicans -- smokers and ex-smokers. Anybody who has ever quit or tried to quit has to sympathize with Obama and his habit of 30 years.

But the world of smokers is getting smaller and not just for health reasons. With his salary of $400,000 a year, Obama is one of the diminishing number of people who can still afford to smoke.

Jump to full article »

• Colorectal Cancer Risk Elevated in Men and Smokers 

Male gender and current smoking are significant risk factors for advanced colorectal neoplasia and colorectal cancer, according to two studies published in the June issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

In one study, Kelvin K.F. Tsoi, M.D., of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, and colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of 28 cohort studies which included 1,463,796 subjects in America, Europe, and Asia who were followed for a median of 13 years. Compared to never smokers, they found that current smokers had an increased risk of colorectal cancer and rectal cancer (relative risks, 1.20 and 1.36, respectively). They also found that male smokers had a higher risk of colorectal cancer than female smokers (relative risks, 1.38 and 1.06, respectively).

Jump to full article »

Smoking ordinance cheered, criticized  

After shopping at Target, Simi Valley resident Karen McKennan stood in the parking lot of the Moorpark Marketplace shopping center to smoke a cigarette.

“Life has been stressful lately. (Smoking) on occasion helps me relax,” McKennan said Wednesday.

Smoking after she shops has been a regular habit for the 25-year-old, but after Aug. 1 she may have to be more discreet or find a smoking-designated area.

The Moorpark City Council on June 17 initially approved an amendment to an existing smoking ordinance, prohibiting smoking in public places — including sidewalks and athletic fields. Violators can be fined $100 to $500, depending on how many times they are cited within a period of time.

The ordinance still needs final approval from the council. If approved at the council’s next general meeting at 7 p.m. Wednesday, the ordinance would take effect Aug. 1.

Jump to full article »

Ask Us Anything: Is smoking banned in San Clemente city parks? 

Q. Did the city pass a no-smoking ordinance in city parks? If so, what was/were the reason(s) for such. If not, why not? - Dean

A. Since 2004, San Clemente has banned smoking on city beaches and the pier. In 2008, the ban was extended to the San Clemente Coastal Trail and other public trails operated by the city. . . .

The parks commission recommended extending the ban to city parks, but City Council members were divided over that. Parks are wider spaces, some said, and state law al

Jump to full article »

Before the ban: Rapture stubs out smoking, C&O cuts down 

Even before the General Assembly banned smoking in restaurants and bars effective December 1, longtime smokers' paradise Rapture decided to pull the plug on puffing.

"We had made the decision before we heard about the legislation," says co-owner Mike Rodi.

Last August, the restaurant went smoke-free at lunch. "We were losing business," says Rodi. "We'd have maybe one smoking table, and people waiting for non-smoking. And we had a lot of smoke drift."

In January, smoking in the bar and Club R2 was limited to between 11pm and 2am, and on June 15, smoking was fini at Rapture.

The restaurant has a new chef, new items on the menu, and the owners are ready to freshen up the decor, paint and upholstery. It seemed pointless to do that in a smoky environment, says Rodi.

Jump to full article »