Email
Password
(Forgot Password?)
Why do some smokers develop lung disease and others don't? And just how effective is supplemental oxygen therapy in treating patients with emphysema?
The University of Michigan Health System will try to find out, through two new multi-center research studies that seek to improve diagnosis and treatment for millions of people affected by emphysema, chronic bronchitis and other lung diseases. Together, those conditions are known as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Both studies are now accepting new participants.
While smoking is the leading cause of COPD, only 25 percent of smokers develop the disease. For the COPDGeneTM study, U-M will enroll hundreds of current or former smokers - with and without COPD - between 45 and 80 years of age to discover the inherited factors that make some people more likely to develop COPD. U-M is one of 21 leading medical centers participating in the study, which will enroll more than 12,000 people across the United States.
COPDGeneTM is one of the first COPD studies to include a large percentage of African American participants.
Jump to full article »
The smoke still has not cleared between the Michigan House and Senate on whether state residents should be allowed to enjoy cigarettes while dining.
It has been six months since the Michigan House passed a statewide smoking ban for public places, such as restaurants and bars, and the Senate still has not picked up the bill, which exempts casinos and cigar bars. Some representatives still are pushing for the Senate to take action on the bill, but experts said disagreement between the two houses could mean the Senate might not pick it up at all.
“Having just finished up the budget process, we are looking at our agenda for the upcoming year and we haven’t had any discussion of how we will address the smoking ban,” said Matt Marsden, spokesman for Sen. Majority Leader Mike Bishop, R-Rochester.
The Senate passed a smoking ban with no exemptions in 2008, but the House never picked up that bill, he said.
“If there is going to be a smoking ban, we don’t believe there should be carve-outs for certain establishments,” Marsden said.
But exempting casinos and cigar bars would create a “middle ground,”
Last week, the University held its first public forum to discuss implementation of the campuswide smoking ban. While not really answering questions like, “Whose idea was the smoking ban?”, the University clarified what will happen to students who violate the ban. . . .
I find myself wondering if the University set a date so far in the future in order to minimize complaints from students, most of whom will graduate before being affected by the ban.
Whether intentional or not, this tactic may be working. I’ve heard some people who aren’t thrilled with the idea of a ban say that they don’t care too much because it won’t ever affect them. But regardless of how many students this will impact, all members of the campus community have an obligation to voice their opposition to an unfair policy that sets a dangerous precedent against students’ rights. I'm not a smoker, and never have been. . . . I question how much money will be saved by banning an activity that only about 14 percent of employees and 16 percent of students engage in. Keep in mind that smokers won’t be forced to quit, they just won’t be able to smoke on campus. So instead of significantly reducing health care costs, all this ban will do is further inconvenience and alienate smokers.
The University is free to promote public health all it wants by offering programs to assist smokers who want to make the choice to quit. It can hand out pamphlets on the risks of smoking. It can offer discounted smoking cessation products, as it plans to under the ban. But the activity itself must remain a right of all students on campus.
I urge everyone to attend the next forum, which will take place at 5 p.m. on Nov. 19 in the Walgreen Center’s Stamps Auditorium on North Campus. Students and faculty must make it clear to the administration we aren’t comfortable on a campus that tramples the rights of individuals so easily.
ESCANABA - As of Jan. 1, Bay College will be designated a smoke-free, tobacco-free campus, according to college officials. Students, faculty and staff are invited to attend a meeting today to provide feedback on the policy and its implementation.
Executive Dean of Student Services Matthew Soucy said the new policy follows several complaints that have been made about smoke wafting into the building, from students and faculty.
States usually cite two major reasons for hiking their cigarette taxes: to decrease smoking, and to increase state tax revenue. Although these two goals can conflict, the "inelastic" nature of the cigarette market often allows policymakers to achieve both aims at once, with modest smoking reductions accompanying net increases in tax revenue.
This outcome may become increasingly difficult to achieve, however. Many states have raised their cigarette taxes significantly in recent years. These increases have likely furthered the growth of two types of cigarette smuggling: "casual" smuggling, in which individual consumers save money by buying their cigarettes in low-tax states or countries, and "commercial" smuggling, in which larger-scale operators buy cigarettes in bulk in a low-tax area and sell them tax-free in high-tax areas. This smuggling undermines both the revenue and health goals of higher cigarette taxes, while producing unintended consequences for individual states and American society as a whole. In this study, the authors consider cigarette smuggling from two angles. First, they employ a statistical model to estimate the degree to which cigarette smuggling occurs in 47 of the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Second, they review the historical experiences of three states - Michigan, New Jersey and California - known to have problems with cigarette smuggling. . . .
The authors' review of Michigan's, New Jersey's and California's cigarette smuggling experiences suggest that cigarette smugglers can realize large profits: tens of thousands of dollars for a single vanload of cigarettes, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single truckload. These sums represent a loss in estimated tax revenues to a state's treasury, but they have produced other unintended consequences, including a variety of crimes:
In this study, the authors consider cigarette smuggling from two angles. First, they employ a statistical model to estimate the degree to which cigarette smuggling occurs in 47 of the 48 contiguous U.S. states. Second, they review the historical experiences of three states -- Michigan, New Jersey and California -- known to have problems with cigarette smuggling. The author's findings suggest that state policymakers should reassess the value of cigarette taxes as a revenue and public health tool.
University officials held the first public forum last night to discuss the University’s decision to make campus entirely smoke free by July 2011.
Ken Warner, dean of the School of Public Health, told students, faculty and community members that the University will be going “cold turkey” when it comes to smoking on campus.
Warner spoke in Palmer Commons as part of a presentation from the Smoke-Free University Initiative, which aimed to announce formally the University’s plan to ban smoking on campus. According to presenters, this informational session is just the beginning of the “implementation process.”
Smoking on the Grand Rapids Community College campus has dropped significantly since a ban gained teeth this fall -- but apparently trespassing from students and staff is on the rise.
President Steven Ender said he has heard complaints that students and staff looking for a nicotine nook are walking across the street to businesses, homes and other places to light up, often leaving a trail of butts that need to be cleaned up.
Ender is urging people who feel the need to light up to head to four off-campus spots, including Cancer Survivors Park up the street. GRCC President Steven Ender "It's a problem," he said Wednesday. "As we've grown more aggressive on the enforcement side, people looking to smoke are crossing the street onto other people's properties and even backyards."
Grand Rapids Public Library leaders are among those grumbling. Spokeswoman Kristen Corrado said students have been found sitting in window ledges, in the parking lot and on sidewalks, dropping butts and even rubbing out cigarettes on the side of the building.
"We want people to feel welcome in our building, and we think it's nice that community college students use the library," she said. "But we're also a smoke-free facility."
Public Act 56 of 2009 known as the Fire Safety Standard and Firefighter Protection Act (attached) provides for the regulation of the sale and distribution of fire safe cigarettes. These cigarettes are specifically manufactured to self-extinguish if they are left unattended. As careless smoking is the second leading cause of home fire related deaths and injuries in the United States, this legislation will result in saving lives. Michigan is one of 49 states to have this type of law, which takes effect on January 1, 2010.
Cigarette manufacturers are required to register their cigarette brand families and pay a fee of $1250 for each brand family in order to sell these cigarettes in Michigan. After January 1, 2010, it will be unlawful to sell non-compliant cigarettes in Michigan that have tax stamps after that date. Packaging for these cigarettes are required by law to have a special mark called the Fire Standard Compliant (FSC) mark indicating that the cigarettes meet certified laboratory low ignition standards. These marks must be submitted to the State Fire Marshal for approval.
The brand family registration process currently under development will consist of an on- line registration and payment process for brand families and associated styles (brands). . . .
Beginning November 9, 2009, the approval process for the FSC packaging mark will consist of the manufacturer simply sending an email with an illustration of the FSC mark that meets the requirements of the law attached as a PDF file to statefiremarshal@michigan.gov the request will be reviewed and an approval email will be sent to the manufacturer within five business days.
State Fire Marshal Ronald R. Farr today announced that cigarette manufacturers must certify their brand families and associated styles as fire safe in order to sell them in Michigan after January 1, 2010. The Fire Standard Compliant (FSC) mark approval process for manufacturers begins today.
This is in accordance with Governor Jennifer M. Granholm signing into law Public Act 56 of 2009, the Fire Safety Standard and Firefighter Protection Act, which provides for the regulation of the sale and distribution of fire safe cigarettes. These cigarettes are specifically manufactured to self-extinguish if left unattended. The new law goes into effect January 1, 2010.
"This law will have a significant impact on reducing the number of fires, associated deaths, injuries, and property damage caused by discarded or unattended smoking materials," said Farr. "Because these cigarettes are less likely to ignite fires, this law is a big step in fire protection for Michigan citizens."
A 48-year-old Mears man died Saturday morning in a fire that appears to have been caused by a cigarette, according to Hart Fire Chief Ken Klotz, Jr.
Randall Eugene Worth is suspected to have died of smoke inhalation
A smoking ban covering businesses across Muskegon County takes effect Monday.
The Clean Indoor Air Regulation Act applies to all indoor businesses, from sports arenas to bingo halls. But there's a state law protecting all Michigan bars and restaurants from the ban. It sounds like a good deal for restaurants, but at least one owner wishes the ban went a little further.
"I'm just sorry restaurants and bars weren't included in this ban that's coming up now," says Lynne Fogarty of Main Street Pub in North Muskegon.
Her restaurant is not affected by Muskegon County's new smoking ban, but she wishes her place was.
Muskegon County residents who expect big changes Monday when the county smoking ban takes effect will be surprised. The new ban affects only about 5 percent of county businesses, the rest had voluntarily implemented similar smoking bans.
The Muskegon County Clean Indoor Air Regulation covers traditional offices, govenment buldings and industrial sites including lobbies, hallways, waiting areas, restrooms and individual offices. Sports arenas, convention halls and bingo parlors without food vending licenses also are covered. And hotels and motels will have to keep 80 percent of guest rooms smoke-free. . . .
While the county's ban on smoking inside workplaces and public buildings, is a step forward in improving health in this county, the big change will come if a statewide ban is enacted that would include restaurants and bars. Unfortunately, Lansing lawmakers have been debating the issue for almost a decade without any action.
Perhaps lawmakers would consider a legislative referendum placing the issue before voters. Or maybe the voters should get the issue on the ballot.
Then we might see real change.
A crackdown on tobacco sales to minors in Warren resulted in citations for 16 businesses over the past two months, Warren Mayor Jim Fouts said today.
During the first operation, at the start of the school year in September, police cited nine businesses for selling tobacco to minors. Last week, police cited seven businesses.
Most were gas stations near schools.
Idea 32: Stop stealing from future taxpayers by mortgaging the tobacco lawsuit settlement money. . . .'
Benefits: Those three trips to the tobacco lawsuit loan window are responsible for about $80 million in annual debt service payments. That money is not available for government services, including revenue sharing for communities, college scholarships and certain Medicaid programs. Stopping this practice would free up money for higher budget priorities.
How: The best solution might be a ballot initiative to remove any ambiguity in the state constitution's balanced budget provisions. Publicizing this practice might shame lawmakers into stopping it.
Obstacles: Lawmakers prefer to spend but fear asking current voters to pay more, thinking it is better to stiff future taxpayers.