Actress Katherine Heigl, 31, best known for her role on “Grey’s Anatomy,” broke out her electric “smoke stick” Monday night while appearing the “Late Show.” She told David Letterman she’s tried everything to quit smoking, and this is her latest effort. A smoke stick is a cigarette substitute that heats the liquid nicotine inside with a small battery-powered atomizer.

Are smoke sticks, a.k.a. electronic cigarettes, as bad for you as cigarettes?

The jury is out.

Dr. Alan Blum, who directs the University of Alabama Center for the Study of Tobacco and Society, tells CBS News there is a lot to debate.

In principal, says Blum, smoke sticks are less harmful, because they deliver “just a little bit” of vaporized nicotine without the harmful combustion by-products one gets from a real cigarette.

In addition, there is little second hand smoke to worry about.

But smoke sticks are poorly regulated, and the FDA is working to reign them in. Recently, the agency sent warning letters to five electronic cigarette distributors for making unsubstantiated claims and for having poor manufacturing practices.

Heigl, who started smoking in her early 20′s, is trying to be as healthy as possible now that she is a mom (she adopted a girl from South Korea last year). She’s tried nicotine gum and patches and the prescription medication Chantix, according to the New York Daily News.

Smoke sticks seem to be the only thing that works for her.

Forty-six million Americans smoke, and smoking-related illnesses kill 1,000 of us each day.

From: www.cbsnews.com

• Do you provide your extra medical cannabis to dispensaries? It will be a crime to do so if Prop 19 passes. In addition, large Oakland growers and tobacco companies will take control of the market and push you out.
We can’t say it enough times: Prop 19 does not invalidate, change, or supersede Prop 215 in any way, shape, or form! Please see Prop 19 is the best thing to happen to medical marijuana patients since Prop 215 for the full explanation, but the relevant analysis is this:

Anyone who claims that Proposition 19 will restrict or eliminate rights under the Compassionate Use Act (CUA or “Prop 215?) or the Medical Marijuana Program (MMP or “SB420?) is simply wrong.

Section 2B presents the controlling and relevant purposes for understanding what Prop. 19 can and cannot do. This section EXPRESSLY excludes the reach of Prop. 19 from the CUA and MMP.Sections 2B (7 & specifically state that the purpose of this initiative is to give municipalities total and complete control over the commercial sales of marijuana “EXCEPT as permitted under Health and Safety Sections 11362.5 and 11362.7 through 11362.9.”

…existing laws cannot be repealed by inference and instead must be EXPRESSLY repealed. A court cannot find that a law, such as the CUA or MMP, was changed by “implication.”

It is contrary to any rational understanding of statutory construction to infer that since Prop. 19 gives cities control over the distribution of non-medical marijuana, that it also gives cities the right to control the medical distribution of cannabis beyond what the CUA and MMP allows.

In other words, Prop 19 is about personal use and Prop 215 is about medical use. They are two separate systems and the establishment of the former does not alter the latter. If you’re a patient and you’ve been selling to a dispensary, that does not change, for that all falls under “medical”. If you’re just a dude who wants to sell to a marijuana store after Prop 19, that will fall under Prop 19′s licensing guidelines.

Just for fun, let’s look at Stop19′s other bullet points full of lies.

How will Prop 19 affect you?• Are you age 18-20? You will not be allowed to consume cannabis legally under Prop 19. Currently, all you need is a medical recommendation to do so.

Are you age 21-115? You are not allowed to consume cannabis legally now. After Prop 19, you can. And for the 18-20s, you can still go get that medical recommendation. Prop 215 does not go away after Prop 19.

• Do you interact with anyone under age of 21? You will be looking at up to 6 months in jail for passing them a joint. (If the person is under 18 you will be looking at up to 7 years in prison.)

The parenthetical scare sentence is what the law is now if you pass a joint to a minor. Prop 19 doesn’t create that law. The new punishment is for people 21+ passing a joint to people 18-20… and if your opposition to legalization for everyone 21-115 years old is that you don’t want to go to jail for smoking pot with teenagers, I cannot reason with you.

• Do you live in the same “space” and a minor? (Space could mean anything from the same house to an entire apartment complex.) You will not be allowed to consume cannabis.

“Space” could mean the entire cosmos! Once again, if your opposition is that you can’t smoke pot around little kids, I cannot reason with you. Currently all over America, moms and dads put their kids to bed and step out to the patio or garage to smoke pot and that’s all anyone is asking of you. Unless you’re a Prop 215 patient, because, once again, that doesn’t change and if you’re using medically around your kids, you’re just as legal as you are now.

• Do you rent your home? Prop 19 will only allow you to grow cannabis if you have permission from your landlord. Due to the risks involved, many (if not most) California landlords do not allow it. How is this legalization?

Uh, because the people who have cool landlords will be able to grow cannabis? What a reach this is! Pets are legal, but my landlord can forbid me from having them in my apartment. Or does your version of “legalization” mean you have an absolute right to install high-voltage indoor lighting, support structures, air scrubbers, and bring pounds of dirt and gallons of water onto someone else’s property?

• Do you grow cannabis with a doctor recommendation? Prop 19 will likely be interpreted by law enforcement and judges to limit your grow space to 5?x5?.

Not likely, not even possible. (And it’s “25 square feet”, not “5′x5′”. Nothing mandates that your 25 square feet be actually square.)

• Do you currently have to use your medical cannabis anywhere but home? Prop 19 will prevent patients from using their medicine anywhere in pubic. Which for many people with illnesses is not always possible.

Prop 215 does not go away when Prop 19 passes. Prop 19 specifically deals with personal, not medical use. Prop 19 doesn’t allow personal use of marijuana in public. Prop 215′s medical use allowances will still exist.

• Do you sell your extra medical cannabis to other medical patients? Prop 19 will make this practice illegal. Even if you are only selling it to cover your growing cost.

And now we’re getting to the root of the issue… growing weed in your closet and selling it at grossly inflated prices is coming to an end. If you want to be in the business of growing and selling marijuana, then we’re going to treat it like a business.

• Do you currently enjoy the use of cannabis free from Government interference? Not only will the Government impose excessive taxes under Prop 19, but the federal government will likely respond with unprecedented action against California cannabis users. “The federal Controlled Substances Act makes it a felony to grow or sell cannabis. California can repeal its own marijuana laws, leaving enforcement to the feds. But it can’t legalize a federal felony. Therefore, any grower or seller paying California taxes on marijuana sales or filing pot-related California regulatory paperwork would be confessing, in writing, to multiple federal crimes.”

This same argument was made with Prop 215 – the feds won’t like it and they’ll crack down on California! Well, sure, until the feds change their marijuana laws, they aren’t going to like it if the states do. But remember that federal law enforcement completely depends on local law enforcement to engage in these busts and Prop 19 has language that specifically forbids state and local law enforcement from even “threatening or attempting to seize” lawfully cultivated marijuana.

Material by: www.opposingviews.com

Japan Tobacco Inc., the world’s third-largest publicly traded cigarette maker, said demand is recovering in Russia, Ukraine and neighboring countries, as the region emerges from the global recession. Sales by volume of Japan Tobacco’s Winston, LD and other brands in the region rose 0.6 percent in the two months ended Aug. 31 after falling 9.7 percent in the first quarter and 7.3 percent in the second, the company said in a presentation to investors yesterday.

Japan Tobacco counts on Russia and other markets in eastern Europe to spur earnings as it expects domestic sales to fall 16 percent this fiscal year because of a planned tax increase on Oct. 1. The region accounts for almost half of Japan Tobacco’s overseas cigarette sales by volume, according to the company.

There have been “initial signs of recovery observed, with the return of the historic trend of higher consumption during the summer,” the Tokyo-based company said in its presentation in St. Petersburg.

Russia’s economy may expand 4.3 percent in 2010, compared with a record 7.9 percent contraction in 2009, VTB Capital, a Moscow-based investment bank, said Sept. 13.

Japan Tobacco rose 0.1 percent to 280,700 yen at the 3 p.m. close of trading on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The stock has fallen 10 percent this year, compared with a 9.4 percent decline in the Nikkei 225 Stock Average.

The cigarette maker bought RJR Nabisco Inc.’s international businesses, including the Camel and Winston brands, in 1999 and the U.K.’s Gallaher Group in 2007.

The company’s profit in the first quarter declined 47 percent after domestic sales fell 7.9 percent and a stronger yen eroded the value of overseas earnings. The Japanese government plans to raise taxes by 70 yen (84 cents) per pack of 20 cigarettes from next month.

Material by Naoko Fujimura, from: www.bloomberg.com

At a meeting this month in Newfoundland, provincial health officials learned of a sudden shift in federal policy, the Globe and Mail reported yesterday: Ottawa abruptly abandoned plans for bigger, scarier health warnings on cigarette packages, saying it would prefer to fight harder against contraband tobacco.

But these strategies are not mutually exclusive; governments could have chosen tougher labelling while simultaneously going after untaxed contraband. The net effect of these policy changes is to leave packaging deterrence unchanged while helping the big tobacco companies defend their market share — and of course helping government protect its tax revenue.

Health officials from several provinces reacted badly to the federal shift, the newspaper said, especially since a lot of time and money had gone into new warning labels, which could have covered up to 90 per cent of the packet’s surface. One proposal involved a photo of an emaciated late-stage cancer patient in a hospital bed.

We are not quite comfortable with such extreme images, although there is evidence that warning labels do some good. The new version was to have included a new pan-Canadian “hotline” phone number for stop-smoking advice and help. British Columbia’s health minister told the paper that “a number of us said we would have liked to move on these issues.”

Moving on contraband will not be so easy. Annually, federal and provincial governments take additional measures to tighten controls on tobacco, on cigarette-making machinery, and so on; annually they are found to be far behind the makers and importers of grey-market and flatly illicit smokes. The involvement of native individuals and groups makes this business too hot a potato for governments to tackle in any meaningful way.

Big Tobacco hates illegal smokes, which are eating up market share at a time when smoking is dwindling. New federal figures this week say only 18 per cent of Canadians now smoke, down from 19 per cent in 2005 and 25 per cent in 1999. One reason the decline is slowing, experts agree, is that untaxed contraband cigarettes are far less expensive than brand name ones.

The fight against contraband might serve the companies well, but making it the principal attack on the whole problem serves Canadians badly.

THE tobacco industry will continue to use “denial, deceit, opposition and delay” and to exploit legal loopholes to push its products, a public health expert says. Public Health Association of Australia president Professor Mike Daube predicts a “proliferation” of tobacco industry-funded campaigns.

“The tobacco industry has shown it can find its way through the tiniest of legislative loopholes,” he said.

“Unless action is taken now, we can brace ourselves for a new wave of tobacco-industry advertising on TV and other media, masquerading as advertising on behalf of front organisations. Even more worrying, our children are being exposed to pro-tobacco promotion on mass media.”

Professor Daube is in Adelaide for the Public Health Association of Australia conference. He is also concerned at the introduction of casks of ready-to-drink “alcopops”.

It is understood the two-litre mixed-vodka casks will soon be available in Adelaide.

At the same conference, Flinders University’s Professor Ann Roche warned that alcopops were the drink of choice for young people who drank at risky levels – and beer and wine were also drunk in unsafe amounts.

Perhaps many have heard of the interesting interview that Fidel Castro, the retired Cuban leader had with “The Atlantic” magazine (September 8), where he said, “The Cuban model doesn’t even work for us anymore.” He directed a message to the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop hating Jews and denying the holocaust.

He described the Cuban Missile Crisis that was about to trigger a nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union as “it wasn’t worth it at all”. Are these the end-of-life confessions of an elderly man? Maybe. However, it is notable that these confessions have not bothered Castro himself as much as they have concerned those believing in the revolutionary model, or rather, say, the revolutionary era.

It is difficult for anti-capitalists and anti-liberals to accept the idea of absurdity in the revolutionary demagogue. Despite the end of communism and the fall of the Berlin wall two decades ago, many ideological regimes and parties have survived in some form. They have kept the same ideological rhetoric while making superficial reforms, most notably privatizing some of the profitable state-owned institutions, which instead of helping to solve main economic problems, has created a new class of exploiters associated with the state. Although many anti-capitalist/liberal states have adopted a somewhat free economy and opened their markets to foreign investment, they have kept many restrictions in the form of an outdated (bureaucratic) governmental system.

The problem of economic reform is that it cannot be fragmented, and some of its conditions adopted while others are neglected. China, which has been economically “open” since the 1970s, recognized this fact; thus, it has worked hard to separate what is political from what is economic. It has created a sort of balance in an ambitious economic vision. True, this balance witnessed some tremors, such as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, when China recognized that it had to accept some of the consequences of economic reform, including the emergence of a middle class that has its own political and social demands. Now, 247 millions Chinese are classified as middle-class; this number is expected to reach 600 millions by 2015.

Cuba’s problem was that it was imprisoned in its revolutionary leaders’ dreams. It never thought of opening its doors to world economy until recently. In 1993, the economic conditions were deteriorating, so the Cuban authorities decided to permit the use of the US dollar. Within a few years, a little hope was raised in the revolutionary state due to the increasing revenues of tourism and trade, especially in the form of the famous Cuban cigars, despite American sanctions. However, instead of investing in this improvement, Fidel and his comrades decided to suspend the use of US dollar in 2004, which directly hit the Cuban economy. By the end of 2006, Cuba reached a deplorable state. As Castro himself faced a health crisis (2007), he transferred power to his brother Raul. One of the first decisions taken by the new government was to allow citizens to buy computers, mobile phones and microwaves, in a country where a government worker’s salary does not exceed $20 a month.

Commenting on the controversy caused by what was said in Fidel Castro’s interview, a statement issued by Raul Castro pointed out that what the “leader” meant to say was “The economic model does not work, but this does not mean the revolution, the socialist virtues and the spirit of independence [no longer work]. He was specifically speaking of the economic model.” Anyway, Castro, as many observers insist, is trying to market his brother’s economic reforms, especially in a time when his government has announced the lay-off of half a million Cuban government workers.

The Cuban model, which has been imprisoned in its own revolutionary totalitarian regime since 1959, has parallels in the Middle East and Africa, where armed groups seize power and impose their ideology on the political authorities regardless of the economic and structural losses inflicted on the state. Castro’s regime had been supported by the Soviet Union until its fall. Then, Hugo Chavez went on to support Cuba by providing it with 100,000 oil barrels in the last five years. However, this support was of little help during the economic crisis, when the country became incapable of paying wages or running its institutions.

In the 1960s, Castro boasted that the tobacco farmers strike was one of the most important factors for the success of the revolution. Thus, he attempted to promote the idea that the cigar, once a luxury limited to the Bourgeoisie, should become available to workers and farmers as a symbol of the revolution and the nation. Similarly, in Iran 100 years ago, a fatwa (religious ruling) issued by Ayatollah Al-Shirazi (in 1891) prohibiting the use of tobacco caused Nasser Al-Din Shah to retract the granting of an export license to a British company. Eventually, Al-Shirazi issued another fatwa allowing the Iranians to smoke tobacco provided that one fifth of the tobacco revenues were put at his disposal. However, in Cuba, the cigar transferred from the farmers’ mouths to export shipments in search of hard currency.

Whilst the export of Cuban cigars to the US was prohibited, the most exported product to Iran is US cigarettes, which reached 158 million dollars during the Bush administration. In a move to limit the use of American cigarettes, a spokesman of the Anti-Smoking Association in Iran recently declared that American cigarettes are contaminated with pigs’ blood and nuclear waste, in an effort to intimidate the Iranians who have not been discouraged by the US sanctions from buying its cigarettes.

Cuba and Iran are similar to a great extent; both are “revolutionary” states, particularly hostile to the US, both have imposed internal isolation on their people and turned their economy upside down, such that capitalism/liberalism is considered a threat to the principles of the revolution. What, then, was the result? Today, Castro and his comrades are acknowledging the failure of their adventurous project, and are satirically moving towards capitalizing the economy, yet amidst conditions dated back to the Cold War. Iran witnessed a fierce war with Iraq that destroyed all its resources, and invested its reserves in groups and parties abroad. When Iran started its reconstruction project in the early 1990s, economic reform leaned towards a centralized economy. Ten years after economic openness, the Revolutionary Guards seized the most important economic companies and institutions.

All one can hope for is that Iran will not repeat Cuba’s mistakes. Perhaps this motivated the old revolutionary Castro to advise the young revolutionary Ahmadinejad not to listen to the mullahs, as they are religiously indoctrinated people who make no compromises. Castro is right in this respect, as Cuba’s cigars could not prevent the country from decline, similarly, Iran’s tobacco will not make Iranians dispense with American cigarettes.

One in five people aged over 18 smoke and almost one in three are overweight, a survey on the health and wellbeing of Victorians has revealed. The latest Victorian Population Health Survey involved 34,000 adults and provided health data on all of the state’s 79 local government areas. Among its findings was that 19.1 per cent of Victorians aged over 18 years were smokers and men were more likely to smoke than women. But, the good news is that this is down from 24.1 per cent in 2001.

Men were also more likely to be overweight than smoking women. The survey showed 31.9 per cent of Victorians were overweight and 16.7 per cent were obese in 2008.

Despite these concerning findings, 81.5 per cent of adults reported their health was excellent, very good or good and this has not changed significantly since 2005.

The survey, conducted in 2008, was only released now because of the time taken to collate and analyse the data, a government spokesman said on Sunday.

Other results included:

* 60.3 per cent of adults met the national guidelines for exercise.

* 56.9 per cent of Victorians consumed one or two serves of vegetables per day. More than twice as many females (10.5 per cent) as males consumed five or more serves of vegetables each day.

* More than half of the female population (54.6 per cent) reported consuming two or more serves of fruit daily compared with 42.3 per cent of men.

* 10.7 per cent of adults had asthma, down from 12.1 per cent in 2001.

* About 13.6 per cent of men and 6.9 per cent of women reported drinking alcohol weekly at levels for short-term risk.

Health Minister Daniel Andrews said the survey painted a comprehensive picture of the health and wellbeing of Victorians.

“The survey is a vital tool in planning for a healthier future and contains data on health behaviours such as smoking, fruit and vegetable intake, alcohol consumption, levels of physical activity and cancer screening,” he said on Sunday.

The Victorian Population Health Survey will be undertaken at a local government level every three years, with the next survey beginning in early 2011.

Source: news.smh.com.au

Manila (27 September) — The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) through its President Oscar D. Tinio, M.D. expressed full support to President Benigno Aquino III’s call for higher ‘sin’ taxes to generate additional tax revenue for the government. This came following the PMA’s issuance of a nationwide resolution prohibiting medical practitioners from smoking over the weekend.

President Aquino had earlier said he favors an increase in taxes for tobacco products and alcohol, adding that it wouldn’t harm lovers of tobacco or alcohol if they have to pay more in the future because this would be employed to reduce the consumption of something socially unwanted.
The government has yet to make its stance clear about the sin tax but health officials claim that sin tax would substantially diminish consumption of cigarettes and spirits.
“The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) believes that taxes on tobacco should be raised in order to cut down on the high smoking rate and the resultant high social costs. More than P270 billion is being spent not only on hospitalization, due to smoking-related diseases, but the loss of productivity as well,” Tinio said.
“There is a significant imbalance on how much government spends on diseases and productivity losses caused by tobacco compared to the P27 billion revenue that government is getting from the industry” Tinio added.
Meanwhile, in another interview Tinio was asked to comment on President Aquino’s smoking habit. He responded “in fairness to the President, after the issue on his smoking was raised by tri-media, we have not seen him smoke in public. On the other hand, we at the Philippine Medical Association are aware that even as I speak now there are doctors who smoke in public, even worst in front of their patients. This advocacy on smoking should first start within our ranks so that we will have the moral ascendancy to speak against the ills of tobacco not only to our patients but to other groups or professions as well,” Tinio finally said. (PIA)

Source of article: www.pia.gov.ph

You passed away just a short time ago. I was with you when you took your last breath. Your decline was quick, regardless of its inevitability. My sister and I watched every breath in those last days, as you struggled to take one breath in, one breath out. You couldn’t communicate, couldn’t even open your eyes. Your whole being was focused on breathing.

We held your hand. I wasn’t mad at you anymore, my anger having drained away. Peace was what you needed.

When you were diagnosed with lung cancer, I wasn’t surprised. You had, after all, smoked a pack a day for 50 years, all of my life. I spent my entire youth hiding, or tossing your cigarettes, lighters and matches. Didn’t matter. You still smoked.

I grew up, and I wouldn’t let you smoke around me, in my house or around my children. Didn’t matter. You were imprisoned by nicotine addiction. All logic, intelligence and common sense were words that went up in smoke when you needed a cigarette.

When you were diagnosed, I did what I do best, and read all I could about the disease. I was appalled that I found no hope in those pages, just grim realities: 77 percent of smokers who get lung cancer will die.

Lung cancer is the deadliest cancer. You were Stage IV by the time you were diagnosed: Your lymph system was involved — there was already cancer in your bones. I learned in my reading that the cancer had probably been with you 10 years, silently killing you long ago.

I was impossibly furious at you for not quitting smoking. Now, you wouldn’t be around another 20 years to help me raise my children, see your granddaughters graduate from high school, see them become confident, independent, wonderful women. You wouldn’t be around to try once again to teach me how to cook a turkey.

You took your fate with stoicism. No bitterness, just frustration that you had lost control of being an independent woman and had to rely on others in a way you hadn’t ever otherwise. You went from being a business owner, repairing and reupholstering furniture by yourself, to shuffling backwards in a wheelchair, because you couldn’t handle the effort of walking. Went from someone who mothered, to someone who needed care 24 hours a day. Homebound because of the amount of oxygen you were on, forcing your lungs to stay open.

Every time I see someone who smokes, it reminds me of the time that cigarettes robbed me of time with you. I want to go up to that person, young and old, mother and grandfather, and slap them upside the head. Show them that all their struggles to be a better person are lost every time they smoke. Show them that all their dignity, control, money, hopes and dreams are robbed by every puff they take.

When you can’t breathe, everything else becomes irrelevant.

• For a change: Read about lung cancer. It will have a sobering, humanizing effect. Visit www.kp.org, www.lungusa.org or www.webmd.com.

• To make a difference: Regardless of your health, fill out an Advance Directive Form. This will give your loved ones information about how to take care of you when you can’t.

• To make a stand: Stop smoking, or you will die. The statistics are on my side. It’s more likely that you will get cancer if you keep smoking than for me to be statistically wrong. Do it for your family and friends. Do it for your legacy.

Read more: Tracy Press – Living Green Kick the cigarettes and take control