http://www.tobacco.org/newsfeed/category/oped.rss Latest top tobacco news headlines en-us http://gawker.com/5405777/the-inalienable-right-to-smoke http://tobacco.org/news/293072.html Several large NYC landlords are moving to ban smoking inside their own apartment complexes, and on the sidewalks outside them, as well. Clearly, this violates our just-made-up list of Places People Can Always Smoke, No Takebacks. Gawker Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.kyivpost.com/news/opinion/op_ed/detail/53248/ http://tobacco.org/news/293046.html Tobacco tax increases are the most effective way to encourage people to stop smoking. Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, citing concern for the tobacco industry, on Nov. 11 vetoed legislation that would have hiked the excise tax on tobacco products once more. It is worth remembering that - even though tobacco excise taxes were increased in September 2008, and again in February and May of this year - cigarette prices in Ukraine remain among the lowest in Europe. This leads directly to a public health catastrophe for the nation and creates conditions for rampant smuggling of made-in-Ukraine cigarettes to other nations. . . . However, tobacco companies in Ukraine claimed that this tax increase would have been disastrous for their business. . . . Transnational tobacco companies came to Ukraine in 1993. They promised employment, investment and revenue. Now they control 99 percent of the tobacco production in Ukraine. In 1992, Ukraine produced 9,000 tons of tobacco leaves. However, despite huge increases in cigarette production, tobacco growing has almost disappeared in the country. In 1996-2008, the foreign trade balance of tobacco leaves and products was negative for Ukraine and totaled more than $2 billion. It actually means that Ukrainian smokers invested $2 billion in the economies of other nations. What tobacco companies actually produce is death. . . . Many politicians in Ukraine already understand that high tobacco taxes are good both for public health and public revenues. I hope that the current and future president of Ukraine will understand this as well. Kyiv Post news@kyivpost.com (Konstantin Krasovsky ) Ukraine Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/features/2009/1118/1224259040621.html http://tobacco.org/news/293032.html Need a nicotine hit? Want to beat the smoking ban? A smokeless cigarette could be the answer, for the long - or short - haul. Just be prepared for some funny looks, writes ROSEMARY Mac CABE . . . Ryanair now sells the other most popular type, in the form of Similar smokeless cigarettes. Ryanair's head of communications, Stephen McNamara, says the product was introduced due to customer demand. "Some passengers can find it stressful to spend long journeys without a cigarette so we introduced the product based on customer feedback and to cater to passenger demand. It seemed a logical step to introduce a product that could provide smokers with relief from nicotine withdrawal. . . . I spent a day with Ryanair's Similar branded smokeless cigarettes: a packet of 10, purchased for €6 on board a Ryanair flight, to see how it feels to smoke on the right side of the law. The first thing I notice is that they smell, to all intents and purposes, like what one's mother might call "sucky sweets" - irrefutably better than mainstream cigarettes, albeit slightly strange. They feel like real cigarettes and, crucially, they look like them. . . . Smoking a cigarette that looks like a cigarette, acts like a cigarette but neither tastes nor feels like a cigarette (while giving you more nicotine than a cigarette) seems an odd choice. Irish Times rmaccabe@irishtimes.com (ROSEMARY Mac CABE) Ireland Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://media.www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2009/11/19/Feature/Toback.Smoking.Hookah.Not.Worth.The.Health.Risk-3836836.shtml http://tobacco.org/news/292946.html Smokers who think that trying hookah as a healthier alternative to cigarettes are way off base. Hookah smokers inhale a greater volume of smoke, worsening the effects of the chemicals in the tobacco. "Data from several different countries reveals that�a single hookah-use episode lasts for about 45 minutes and can easily involve over 100 puffs," said Thomas Eissenberg, professor�of�psychology at Virginia�Commonwealth�University, whose research is funded by a grant for the National Cancer Institute. "Each puff is about 500 ml in volume, while a single cigarette-use episode lasts about 5 minutes and can involve about 10-12 puffs of about 30-50 ml each. We are talking 100 times the smoke inhalation for a hookah-use episode, 50,000 ml total volume relative to a�single cigarette-use episode, 500 ml total volume." . . While it is widely known that cigarette smoking is bad for your health, hookah is possibly even worse. Hookah smoking is becoming popular across the country with hookah cafes opening up in many cities. Last semester, a hookah bar opened on Marshall Street but closed after just a few months. I guess the cost to expose one's self to cancer must have not worked well in this economy. Daily Orange Thu, 19 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2009/nov/18/anti-smokers-just-cant-quit/ http://tobacco.org/news/292930.html The Wenatchee City Council could have banned smoking in parks. Many cities have, and many are considering it. The city can do it, just because. It doesn’t even have to pick from the usual anti-smoking justifications, real or imagined, like protecting public health or protecting children or fighting litter. It’s enough that most people who use city parks find smoking objectionable and don’t want to watch people do it, or smell it, or get a small whiff of their personal residue. The implications of banning a normally legal personal habit simply because it produces an odor doesn’t matter. A city can ban a public nuisance, and a public nuisance is usually whatever the city says it is. The limits are broad, and smoking has so few defenders the political risk is slight. . . . So where does it stop? Not at your threshold. The next great frontier of anti-smoking law is the private residence. . . . We should be able to sleep without fretting that someone somewhere might be sitting on their couch smoking a cigarette, but we just can’t give it up. Onward, prohibitionists. Wenatchee World warner@wenworld.com (Tracy Warner Editorial Page Editor ) Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://kykernel.com/2009/11/17/students-can-make-own-decisions-do-not-need-administration%E2%80%99s-policy/ http://tobacco.org/news/292843.html I have to admit that I am personally embarrassed by UK President Lee Todd’s proposed tobacco ban. Obviously, it’s no secret that I am vehemently against the ban but it’s not because I smoke (I don’t) or that I support “Big Tobacco.” As I have explained to several individuals, I don’t really have a dog in the fight. . . . beyond being embarrassing for the governed, it deliberately limits our freedom of choice. Using tobacco and where we use tobacco (assuming we followed the compromise of outside smoking sections) is a choice that is ours; not the administration’s. To me, it doesn’t make much sense that we elect individuals so that they can make laws to protect us from ourselves. Or in the case of the paternal administration, we don’t even have a say in the matter. It’s just a good thing we have Papa Todd and Mama Hahn to take care of us since we aren’t smart enough to know any better. Kentucky Kernel opinions@kykernel.com ( Column by Jacob Sims) Wed, 18 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/11/17/2009-11-17_albany_gasbags_are_full_of_it.html http://tobacco.org/news/292806.html State lawmakers are spouting so much hot air about the state's budget crisis these days, it's a wonder the Capitol hasn't lifted off the ground like the old man's house in the movie "Up." . . . They've got nothing. Ditto for Sen. Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, who made a big show yesterday of demanding that Paterson immediately start enforcing cigarette tax laws on Indian reservations. It's true that Albany has tolerated rampant tax evasion that hurts law-abiding merchants and costs state and local government big bucks. But for Kruger to claim that enforcement could reap $1.6 billion a year is reckless. "If people smoked that much there would be a big black cloud over the state blocking out the sun," one budget official quipped. Throwing around numbers like that suggests that Kruger is exploiting the issue as an excuse not to grapple with the politically dicey work of finding cuts. New York Daily News Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.lohud.com/article/20091116/OPINION/911160305/1076/OPINION01/Funding%20anti-tobacco%20programs%20saves%20us%20in%20the%20long%20run http://tobacco.org/news/292805.html The 2008 Independent Evaluation report of the New York State Tobacco Control Program was recently released, and the news is good. Our tobacco control program in New York is working, and working well. Both youth and adult smoking rates are declining significantly faster than the rates for the U.S. as a whole. The smoking rates in Putnam, Orange, Westchester and Rockland counties are at or significantly under the national smoking rate. Support for the Clean Indoor Air Act is continuing to grow every year, and anti-tobacco attitudes are increasing. Even though our programs are funded at one-third of the funding levels that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends for the size of our state, these programs are having an effect. This saves lives and saves us money. Continued program funding cuts will jeopardize the gains we are already seeing. New York Journal News Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://thehill.com/opinion/op-ed/68001-administration-must-confront-canada-on-burley-tobacco-ban http://tobacco.org/news/292797.html The Canadian government has enacted a law that could endanger the entire burley tobacco industry. U.S. tobacco growers need President Barack Obama and the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) to ensure that the Canadians honor their trade obligations and that other countries do not follow Canada’s lead in banning American blend cigarettes. The Canadian government’s hypocrisy on trade is startling. Less than a month after Prime Minister Stephen Harper visited Washington to lecture President Obama about the dangers of “Buy American” laws, his government passed a “Buy Canada” tobacco ban that violates Canada’s World Trade Organization (WTO) responsibilities. The legislation, C-32, was intended to ban candy-flavored tobacco products, a worthy goal that U.S. burley growers share. Unfortunately, C-32 morphed into an overreaching piece of legislation that prohibits the manufacture or sale of blended cigarettes that contain burley tobacco. This outcome is especially troublesome because American blend cigarettes are not candy-flavored in any way. . . . At a time when so many sectors of the American economy are suffering, it is wrong for the burley tobacco industry to fall victim to an overreaching foreign law that violates the standards of free and fair trade. It is incumbent on USTR to send a strong message to Canada and other countries that banning blended cigarettes that contain burley tobacco is unacceptable and unnecessary to achieve the goal of reducing youth smoking. -- Quarles is president of the Burley Tobacco Growers Cooperative Association The Hill Canada USA Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=524050&publicationSubCategoryId=64 http://tobacco.org/news/292768.html For better or worse (health wise and economically-speaking somewhat), the Philippines has had a long affair with the tobacco plant. Today, the negative health effects of tobacco and cigarette smoking are well understood; so we hope that the affair is finally coming to an end. Beyond personal health, cigarettes pose a public health and garbage problem. Each day we lose count of how many people we see tossing their cigarettes on the streets and sidewalks: out of car windows, over their shoulder and right in front of other people. People would never indiscriminately litter in their own homes, but almost feel compelled to in public spaces. A health risk is also posed by second hand smoke. . . . Our historical relationship with tobacco began in the late 1500s; it was one of the first plants exported to our shores by the Spanish empire. The goal was to turn the Philippines into a tobacco producing nation. The tobacco plant had a special affinity for our soil and took root quickly. Among the native population smoking tobacco quickly became a status symbol . . . tobacco use among youth in the Philippines indicate that smoking is on the rise. The government has passed the Tobacco Control Act in 2003, but more needs to be done. What we recommend are developing targeted publicity and anti-smoking campaigns focusing on the youth. The goal should be to educate people on the dangers of smoking. In the Philippines, we have not seen such a high-profile campaign mounted. The rising number of youths smoking demonstrates that the health risks of smoking are not being effectively taught. Youth-oriented campaigns have proven effective in other countries and should be emulated here. The benefits of reducing smoking in the Philippines will be found in public health, garbage and even beautifying our cities and streets. Philippine Star Philippines Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.michigandaily.com/content/robert-soave-smoking-and-students-rights http://tobacco.org/news/292746.html 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. Michigan Daily [U. of Michigan] rsoave@umich.edu (Robert Soave) Mon, 16 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20091113/BIZ01/911140302/1001/BIZ/Smokers face more scrutiny from insurers http://tobacco.org/news/292663.html When I started in the business nearly 40 years ago, an agent never asked if the person applying for insurance smoked. Smokers and non-smokers all paid the same for their life insurance. Then, in the 1980s insurers began to charge less for those who said they had not smoked in at least a year. And that is pretty much the standard still used today. But, as explained below, that might be changing. By the way, insurers still do not screen for "passive" or "sideways" smoke. If you live in a house full of smokers and are around smoke all day long at work, common sense and empirical evidence indicate that you can be affected by such exposure. But this is never questioned in a life-insurance application. It is common practice for an insurer to change a person's rating from a smoker to a non-smoker if the insured quits. It used to be that the insured simply had to sign a form attesting to the fact that tobacco had not been used for at least a year. Now the insurers that I represent want that signature plus a urine sample (at company expense) to verify that there has at least been no smoking in the recent past. But beware: Insurers may say that they will reduce the rating if a person gives up smoking, but it does not always happen. . . . The bottom line: Don't smoke. Even if you do and eventually give it up, the earlier exposure to carcinogens may affect your cost of life insurance down the road. Cincinnati Enquirer jbryanclu@aol.com (J. Brendan Ryan ) Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/blogshakalaka/2009/11/will-they-have-an-exclusive-interview-with-mayor-byrne.html http://tobacco.org/news/292532.html The Brown & Williamson tobacco company plans on suing Walter Jacobson for libel today and hopes to win a verdict against Jacobson in time for him to read it on the air when he returns to Channel 2 Newsthey'reverywhere tomorrow night. Jacobson will be teamed with Bill Kurtis on CBS2 tomorrow night for one-night only because the current anchor, Rob Johnson, will have the night off. The move reunites the legendary Chicago news team and is the brainchild of news director Jeff Kiernan. In conjunction with the stunt, Brown & Williamson will reprise its famous lawsuit against Jacobson which resulted in one of the most bizarre moments in Chicago TV news history when Jacobson as a news anchor delivered the lead story one night about himself. The story was that he had been beaten in a mult-million-dollar lawsuit. The announcement of the story was even more bizarre than the fact that someone could actually lose a libel suit to a tobacco company. "It was like losing a defamation suit to Hitler," ChicagoNow Thu, 12 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.examiner.com/x-28352-Madrid-Travel-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Bye-bye-tobacco http://tobacco.org/news/292463.html There are many wonderful things about Spain, but smoking is not one of them. It would seem that just about every Spaniard smokes, either on a regular basis or socially, and it is not possible to go out at night without coming home reeking of cigarettes, so much so it often takes two showers to get the stench out of your hair. It's fine if you, too, are a smoker, but what if you value the quality of the air that you let into your lungs? . . . Spain has significantly improved their smoking habits since the passing of a law on January 1, 2006 . . . But all this is about to change. On January 1, 2010, Spain will finally join its fellow tobacco-loving neighbors, France and Italy, in a ban on smoking in all public buildings. While it has already been forbidden to smoke in airports, hospitals, schools, and public transportation for some time now, come New Years Day, it will also no longer be legal to hold a caña (mini beer) in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Well, at least not indoors... This may not seem like such a momentous event to an American, as many states in the U.S. have been smoke free for more than a decade, but this new law is about to revolutionize Spanish culture. . . . What is certain, though, is that the air will be safer for everyone, especially for all non-smokers who have been forced to inhale so much second hand smoke just to hang out with their friends! Examiner.com Spain Mon, 09 Nov 2009 05:00:00 GMT http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910280381 http://tobacco.org/news/292451.html Why did the city's proposed workplace smoking ban fail? A particularly crushing blow fell a couple of hours before the City-County Council's vote Monday night. That's when Mayor Greg Ballard walked into a closed-door meeting with council Republicans and made clear he didn't want the ordinance to land on his desk. Until that point, the mayor had been missing in action from the monthslong debate about the smoking ordinance. He hadn't shared his views with his constituents or the media. He hadn't held a news conference or issued a statement on one of the biggest council debates of the year. He hadn't even met with the ordinance's authors. Instead, he played the role of squishy politician, avoiding a stand on the issue as long as he could. Then, in another political move, he tried to influence the outcome in a private meeting -- a meeting the mayor's office confirmed only after sources leaked the news. John Cochran, one of Ballard's top advisers, confirmed that the mayor met with fellow Republicans on the 25th floor of the City-County Building just before Monday's council meeting. . . . Ballard could have been a leader. He could have played a key role in the debate. He could have stood up for the men and women who work in the city's smoke-filled bars. Instead, he played politics. Indianapolis Star matthew.tully@indystar.com ( Matthew Tully ) Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:00:00 GMT