Smoking may be going out of fashion in many countries, but in Havana, Matt Frei finds Cuba’s love affair with the cigar continues.The United States famously takes a very fundamentalist attitude to smoking in public.

Want to light up in a restaurant or a bar in Manhattan? Forget it.

How about a stealthy cigarette on the pavement outside our office in Washington? No way.

They will call the cops. The people who do smoke are forced to huddle in underground garages and behind garbage bins as if they were doing crack cocaine.

For a very casual and occasional smoker like me the ostracism has been enough to make me quit for good. Until, that is, I went to Havana.

Smoking passion

Can you imagine my surprise when I saw the cleaning woman in my hotel room, vacuuming the carpet with a huge cigar protruding from her lips?

I do not think they distinguish between smoking and non-smoking rooms in Cuba.
The security guard hovering at the front door was chomping on something the tobacco industry proudly refers to as a “Wide Churchill”.

Cuba smokes with a vengeance. Perhaps it is another way of thumbing its nose at Uncle Sam.

It is certainly another item on the long list of idiosyncrasies.

From the vintage Buicks and Chevys rattling along the pot-holed streets like miracles of recycling, to the crumbling colonial facades, to the earnest posters calling for perpetual revolution, courtesy of the Castro brothers.

Exploding cigar

Lucky for cigars, Fidel Castro smoked them with relish. They were his official vice of choice.

Even today as an octogenarian retiree, he apparently still likes the occasional puff.

When he was younger Castro used to smoke as many as six cigars a day. He was so reliably hooked on them that the CIA even had the brilliant idea of blowing one of them up.

That was assassination attempt 105, I think, out of the 638 which the Cuban intelligence proudly lists.

For his part Castro took the threat seriously and recruited four of Cuba’s best cigar rollers to work undercover in a former palace that had once belonged to a sugar cane baron.

Here they rolled the Commandante’s daily supply in secret, safe from the tampering of the CIA. This is now the Cohiba cigar factory, producing perhaps the world’s finest and most expensive brand.

Cigar festival

Our visit to Havana happened to coincide with the annual cigar festival. This has to be one of the strangest trade fairs on the planet.

For a whole week some of the world’s most ostentatious capitalists descend on one of the world’s last bastions of genuine communism, to smoke themselves to near death.
The highlight is a gala dinner hosted by Habanos, Cuba’s state monopoly cigar manufacturer.

Cigars account for the country’s most lucrative export after nickel.

If you are a paying guest, the dinner costs $500 (£350) a head. They serve five courses and a different cigar with each one of them.

The charming young blonde woman I was sitting next to – the head of a well known international distributor – had brought along a packet of cigarettes, for a quick smoke between cigar courses. You do not want to be caught short. Do you?

It was an astonishing collection of guests.
There was the Japanese toy tycoon with the long ponytail.

The morbidly obese Beijing bigwig who used his monster cigar like a bayonet.

The Russian Mafioso with pitted skin that looked as if someone had stubbed several cigarillos out on his cheeks.

A brace of British lords, who squeezed their Cohibas cigars in deep appreciation of their elasticity, and the posse of very quiet Americans, who had slipped under the US state department’s radar.

The waiters – there were hundreds of them – glowered at the assembled crowd who were puffing on something that cost more than they were lucky to earn in a whole month.

The highlight of the evening? An auction of humidors, stuffed with cigars, which fetched $1m or so. The whole evening was the very definition of capitalist excess.

Smoky atmosphere

So why did the authorities broadcast it live on state television? And why did it not kick-off the counter-revolution in a country plagued by genuine poverty and shortages of just about everything?

It appears that national pride in Cuban cigars – still the best in the world – trumps resentment.

Call it another miracle trick of a regime that has already survived the collapse of communism and the illness of Fidel Castro. The dinner took place in a conference centre that resembled an airport hangar.

A thousands guests, each supplied with five cigars. Imagine the air.

This was either the passive smoking Olympics or for active smokers just another Friday night out in Havana.

So I joined in – with relish – trying not to lose face with the world champion smoker on my right. After four hours, only three cigars and one cigarette, I had to call it quits.

My lungs demanded it. My brain agreed.

I ran out of the giant hall, past guest and tables that had disappeared behind dense clouds of smoke. A waiter flung open the door, clearly fearing the worst.

I inhaled the night air like a drowning man gasping for breath.

The next morning I sent all my clothes to the hotel laundry, brushed my teeth about four times and began nursing a nicotine hangover that lasted for two solid days.

My big mistake was not to follow Bill Clinton’s edict. I smoked and I inhaled.

An Auckland academic says smoking rates in New Zealand would plummet if tobacco products could not be displayed at shops.

Dr Marewa Glover of Auckland University told a select committee today that progress in tobacco control was poor and it was having a particularly bad effect among Maori.

She said outside the hearing that she disagreed with tobacco industry giant British American Tobacco New Zealand (BAT) that banning smoking or restricting its sale would merely produce an uncontrolled black market.

“There just will not be the death and illness to such an extent from so few people smoking, and the fastest way to do that is to get rid of the product off the shelves,” Dr Glover said.

She said BAT’s suggestion that they were offering a legal product which people were choosing to use was “a pack of lies”.

“Nicotine is highly addictive and people do not have freedom of choice. It’s a psychoactive drug, it works on the brain, it manipulates thought, it manipulates motivation and they are driven to smoke.”

Dr Glover said she didn’t want smoking banned but she wanted its over-the-counter sale banned, leaving it for internet purchase or grow-your-own customers only.

When asked about removing the product from visibility in stores but not removing them altogether, BAT managing director Graeme Amey said research showed this would have little impact on the prevalence of smoking.

But after Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei asked why BAT opposed this move if it would make no impact on smoking, Mr Amey said his company could lose market share as a result.

“We operate a commercial business and we are in the business of improving market share,” he said. “Brand switching would become an issue.”

Mr Amey would not tell the committee its marketing strategies in an open hearing, saying it was commercially sensitive. He said he would provide them to the committee confidentially.

Maori Party MP Hone Harawira thanked BAT for addressing the committee, but said he hoped that once the inquiry was complete, “we can ban these products forever”.

Dr Glover said much of tobacco marketing came via its packet design, and removing these from public view would therefore help reduce smoking.

She told the committee that more than half Maori women of childbearing age were smokers, more than double the rate of the whole population, and that smoking among Maori women 14-18 weeks into pregnancy was still high at 45 per cent.

She said 62 per cent of the 328 sudden unexpected deaths among infants (sudi) between 2003 and 2007 were Maori.

“Smoking during pregnancy is a key risk factor for sudi,” she said.

As well as restricting sale, Dr Glover said services to help people quit smoking needed to be easier to access.

“That sort of help needs to be as easy as going to the dairy to buy a packet of smokes.”

Several people told the committee how smoking-related illnesses had claimed the lives of loved ones in their families.

Ngaire Rae of Manaia Public Health Organisation in Whangarei said she had just buried her father, who died from a smoking-related disease at the age of 68.

She said her story was all too common in Northland, where a huge proportion of Maori were smokers.

“He should be sharing his life stories with his whanau, and instead we are deprived of his wisdom and his life stories,” she said.

“I am pleased make sure that there are some strong actions as a result of this inquiry. Let’s not make this a talkfest, let’s make sure your time and ours is not a waste.”

A subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc. has agreed to alter its marketing to specify that organic tobacco does not provide safer tobacco or cigarettes for smokers.
The settlement agreement involving Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. and the attorneys general of 33 states, including North Carolina, took effect Monday.

Santa Fe sells Natural American Spirit cigarettes and organic tobacco for roll-your-own tobacco users. Two cigarette styles — “light mellow taste” and “regular full-bodied taste” are listed on the pack as being made with 100 percent organic tobacco.

On its Web site, Santa Fe already has a disclaimer similar in size to the surgeon general’s warning. The disclaimer reads “no additives in our tobacco does not mean a safer cigarette.”

The disclaimers substitute “organic tobacco” in the place of “no additives.”

Edmund Brown Jr., the attorney general for California, said that the states were concerned that Santa Fe’s advertising may have been misleading consumers into believing that its organic products were less harmful than other tobacco products.

“There is currently no competent or reliable scientific evidence to support this conclusion,” the attorneys general said in the agreement.

The attorneys general had considered taking legal action because they felt the advertising may have been in violation of the Master Settlement Agreement.

“Stamping an organic label on tobacco products is ultimately a distinction without a difference,” Brown said. “Organic or not, cigarettes are bad for your health.”

Santa Fe said it agreed to make the changes even though “we believe our advertising is, and has been, truthful and not misleading.” The agreement states that the settlement is not an admission by Santa Fe that it has violated the MSA.

Santa Fe said that its organic tobacco is certified through the National Organic Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Certified organic tobacco is grown without the use of pesticides and fertilizers prohibited under the program. The agreement allows it to continue to advertise its tobacco as organic or 100 percent organic.

“We came to an amicable agreement, and there was no fine involved,” said Alexandra Pratt, a spokeswoman for Santa Fe. “It made sense to make the agreement, which adds more clarity, which is what the California attorney general wanted.”

Santa Fe said it is sending new marketing materials to distributors and retailers. They have to be in place by March 23.

By Richard Craver, Journalnow

The more that teens see cigarette ads, the greater their risk of taking a puff.
A new study shows that the particular content of tobacco marketing resonates with youth and that the vivid imagery in tobacco advertising captures their interest, although teens typically are more resistant to the promotional seduction of other products.

“Cigarettes have created a brand for every personality trait,” said study lead author Reiner Hanewinkel, Ph.D., director of the Institute for Therapy and Health Research in Kiel, Germany.

“If you are looking to project independence and masculinity, think of the lonely cowboy in the Marlboro ads,” added Hanewinkel, who collaborated with Dartmouth Medical School. “On the other hand, if you’re looking to project a desire for romantic relationships, and friendships are playing a role, then you will choose Lucky Strike if you are a man and Virginia Slims if you are a woman.”

Kids with high exposure to tobacco advertising were twice as likely to have tried smoking and three times as likely to have smoked in the past month, compared to those with low exposure. Exposure to tobacco advertising also was associated with higher intent to smoke in the future among the never-smokers, suggesting that it affects how adolescents perceive smoking even before they start.

The study, which appears online and in the April issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, has relevance for the United States and other nations with partial advertising bans similar to Germany’s restrictions.

The 2008 survey involved 3,415 German schoolchildren, ages 10 to 17, in rural and urban areas. Students saw images (with all the writing and brand logos removed) of six cigarette ads and eight commercial products such as clothing, cars, candy and detergent.

With the brand information missing, researchers measured adolescents’ ad recognition by applying psychological assumptions about attention and memory. They inquired about how frequently students had viewed each ad image and asked about smoking habits and intentions.

“We were amazed at how often they had seen the images and could correctly recall the cigarette brand,” said study collaborator James Sargent, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth. “For example, 55 percent had seen the Lucky Strike image and almost one quarter correctly decoded the brand.”

After analyzing the data, the researchers assessed how likely nonsmokers were to try smoking. Researchers classified survey participants as current smokers if they reported smoking at least once a month.

“This is a well-done study. They controlled for all the things they needed to control for,” said Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Among the outside variables was whether a parent or peers smoke.

“It’s a nice contribution to the literature showing that cigarette advertising is very powerful,” Glantz said, noting the strong link between the amount of ad exposure and the level of youth response.

The more that teens see cigarette ads, the greater their risk of taking a puff. A new study shows that the particular content of tobacco marketing resonates with youth and that the vivid imagery in tobacco advertising captures their interest, although teens typically are more resistant to the promotional seduction of other products.

“Cigarettes have created a brand for every personality trait,” said study lead author Reiner Hanewinkel, Ph.D., director of the Institute for Therapy and Health Research in Kiel, Germany.

“If you are looking to project independence and masculinity, think of the lonely cowboy in the Marlboro ads,” added Hanewinkel, who collaborated with Dartmouth Medical School. “On the other hand, if you’re looking to project a desire for romantic relationships, and friendships are playing a role, then you will choose Lucky Strike if you are a man and Virginia Slims if you are a woman.”

Kids with high exposure to tobacco advertising were twice as likely to have tried smoking and three times as likely to have smoked in the past month, compared to those with low exposure. Exposure to tobacco advertising also was associated with higher intent to smoke in the future among the never-smokers, suggesting that it affects how adolescents perceive smoking even before they start.

The study, which appears online and in the April issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, has relevance for the United States and other nations with partial advertising bans similar to Germany’s restrictions.

The 2008 survey involved 3,415 German schoolchildren, ages 10 to 17, in rural and urban areas. Students saw images (with all the writing and brand logos removed) of six cigarette ads and eight commercial products such as clothing, cars, candy and detergent.

With the brand information missing, researchers measured adolescents’ ad recognition by applying psychological assumptions about attention and memory. They inquired about how frequently students had viewed each ad image and asked about smoking habits and intentions.

“We were amazed at how often they had seen the images and could correctly recall the cigarette brand,” said study collaborator James Sargent, M.D., a professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth. “For example, 55 percent had seen the Lucky Strike image and almost one quarter correctly decoded the brand.”

After analyzing the data, the researchers assessed how likely nonsmokers were to try smoking. Researchers classified survey participants as current smokers if they reported smoking at least once a month.

“This is a well-done study. They controlled for all the things they needed to control for,” said Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research & Education at the University of California, San Francisco. Among the outside variables was whether a parent or peers smoke.

“It’s a nice contribution to the literature showing that cigarette advertising is very powerful,” Glantz said, noting the strong link between the amount of ad exposure and the level of youth response.

By Susan Kreimer, Cfah

The 2008 WI Youth Tobacco Survey found that 7 percent of high school students and 3 percent of middle school students use chewing tobacco. Its use is more common among boys than girls.
With the numbers doubling in the years from middle school to high school, it is very important that our youths are educated about chewing tobacco, its effects on their bodies, and the products and advertising aimed at them by the tobacco companies.

Many people have the incorrect assumption that because chewing tobacco is smokeless, it is also harmless, since the poisons and chemicals are not released into the air. However, that is not the case. Chewing tobacco contains 28 cancer-causing agents, all of which are absorbed into the bloodstream during its use. In fact, chewing tobacco is more addictive and harder to quit than cigarettes. Using spit tobacco eight to 10 times a day can put as much nicotine into the body as smoking 30 to 40 cigarettes, since the nicotine content of spit tobacco is two to three times greater than a single cigarette. Nicotine is more addictive than cocaine or heroin (“About Spit Tobacco,” ETR Associates, 2007).

With the smoking bans that are being implemented around the nation, tobacco companies are changing the focus of their advertising — turning more to promotion of smokeless products as discreet alternatives to cigarettes in places where smoking is not allowed (www.cancer.org). This is creating a new tobacco user — one who smokes in their home, and uses smokeless products in public, posing even more serious health threats to their bodies.

Additionally, the smokeless products that the tobacco companies are advertising have an increasing appeal to teenagers, due to the variety of candy flavors that are available. A recent study by Portland State University Chemistry Professor James Pankow found that smokeless tobacco products have up to 700 percent more flavor additives than candy! The high levels of flavorings are used to cover the taste of the tobacco, luring kids into using it because of the good taste, and not forcing them to think about the health risks associated with its use.
Anti-tobacco advocates state that parents who don’t smoke are not aware about the new threat coming from smokeless flavored tobacco, as they simply have no idea that such products exist. The landmark Tobacco Control act adopted last June, and put into effect in November, prohibits the sales of cigarettes with any flavoring besides menthol; however, the ban doesn’t cover other flavored tobacco products.

Chewing tobacco users face a multitude of health risks, including cancers of the lip, tongue, cheeks, gums and floor and roof of the mouth, nicotine addiction, oral leukoplakia, gum disease and gum recession, heart attack and stroke . According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, oral cancer is the sixth-leading cancer in men, and almost 75 percent of people diagnosed with oral and pharyngeal cancer use tobacco. Additionally, only 56 percent of people diagnosed with mouth or throat cancers live longer than five years.

Feb. 14 to 20 was Through With Chew Week. Established in 1989 by the American Academy of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery Inc., the week serves as an educational campaign to decrease spit tobacco use and increase awareness of the negative health effects of using these products . Locally, our Youth Initiatives group organized a number of events to increase awareness of the dangers associated with chewing tobacco. These kids have taken a stand to not use tobacco products, to educate their peers about the risks associated with the use of tobacco and to fight against the tobacco companies and their deceptive marketing practices. Join the kids in their efforts: Educate yourself about the dangers of chewing tobacco, and consider developing an action plan to quit if you are a current user.

Wendy Young is a Marshfield Clinic AmeriCorps Member serving the Inner Wisconsin Coalition for Youth (IWCFY), working on prevention activities with students in the local schools, including Wisconsin Rapids public and parochial, Immanuel Lutheran, Nekoosa, Pittsville and Auburndale. IWCFY is a network of community members promoting and facilitating healthy lifestyles.

About 200 South Mississippi teenagers will soon be on the front lines in the battle against Big Tobacco.

“Second hand smoke affects the development of a baby’s brain.”

“Smoking while you’re pregnant affects the development of the child.”

Those were just some of the messages they heard Tuesday during a LEAD Conference in Biloxi. LEAD stands for Leadership, Engagement, and Activism Development. The high school students learned how to lead the movement against smoking, especially among young people.

“This is basically a call to action. We want to disseminate the message among as many people as possible. And with us reaching this group, we certainly hope we can make a difference,” said Dena Pope, Youth Programs Coordinator for the Mississippi Department of Health Office of Tobacco Control.

The teens created eye-catching posters and bandanas, with words that inform people about the deadly effects of tobacco use. They also learned how small, inexpensive toys can be effective tools in spreading the message that tobacco kills.

One instructor held up baby doll with a piece of paper attached.

“I put a fact on there, representing how second hand smoke affects children,” he explained.

According to the Mississippi Health Department, 20-percent of Mississippi youth are smokers. And 69,000 high school students in our state will eventually die from smoking.

Some of the teens at the conference know first-hand about the dangers of smoking. Jennifer Ladner of Ocean Springs High School lost her grandfather to a smoking-related illness.

“The tobacco industry is really targeting youth. They’re really using us as targets, as replacement smokers as they call us,” said Ladner. “We really need to step up and for our generation to speak and get the word out there that tobacco is not a good thing.”

Jennifer helped push for a no-smoking ordinance in parks around Ocean Springs. She wants to inspire other teens to join her and become an anti-smoking activist.

“They can stand up for anything they believe in and they can make an impact as youth,” said Ladner.

The LEAD Conference was part of the Mississippi Health Department’s Generation Free Program. Members will make other stops this week in Jackson, Greenville and Tupelo.

By Trang Pham-Bui, Wlox

The U.S. Department of Defense, caught off guard by the swift spread of the H1N1 flu virus last year and delays in producing a vaccine, is backing an unusual plan to use tobacco plants to make the vaccine.

Flu vaccines are typically grown in chicken eggs. Although the technique is slow and expensive, vaccine makers have done little to improve on this reliable method for more than 60 years. The urgent need for a better way became apparent last year.

“The response to H1N1 was a disaster,” said Brett Giroir, vice chancellor for research at Texas A&M University System, part of a consortium testing plant-based vaccines for H1N1, or swine flu.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency—which conducts research to protect soldiers from infectious diseases, and also is concerned about the U.S. capability to react swiftly to a bioterrorist attack, among other things—has awarded the consortium $40 million to make an initial 10 million doses of H1N1 vaccine.

Texas A&M and closely held firm G-Con will together invest a further $21 million. Details of the project, known as GreenVax, will be announced Wednesday.

For several years, vaccine companies have worked on harvesting vaccines in everything from caterpillar cells to cocker-spaniel kidney cells. Plants have certain advantages over animal parts, which may contain pathogens harmful to humans. The tobacco plant is particularly promising: It has been extensively researched, is cheap to grow and can yield large amounts of vaccine quickly—potentially reducing production time to weeks instead of several months.

Earlier this month, Arizona State University researchers showed a plant-based drug could prevent and treat West Nile virus infection in mice. In January, Germany’s Bayer AG said it was testing a plant-based vaccine for non-Hodgkins lymphoma.

In December, Medicago Inc. of Quebec City reported positive results for a tobacco-based vaccine for avian flu, or H5N1, which has killed more than 250 people world-wide. Biotechnology firm VAXX Inc. of Tucson, Ariz., says it soon plans to start a human trial of a tobacco-based vaccine for Norwalk norovirus—or “cruise ship virus”—which causes gastroenteritis in as many as 74 million Americans annually.

GreenVax is one of the more ambitious of the plant-based vaccine projects. It is partly based on research done at Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biotechnology, in a partnership with the biotech firm iBio Inc., both based in Newark, Del.

As a first step, researchers at Fraunhofer isolated a protein from the H1N1 virus known to trigger a protective immune response in a patient without causing an infection. A gene for this protein was then introduced into a bacterium. Tobacco plants were placed in a special chamber and dipped into a soup of the bacteria, which caused the plants to get infected with the gene-carrying bacteria.

The infected plants then began to produce the protein from H1N1 in large quantities. The plants grew for about a week. Their leaves were then chopped up and crushed, and the protein from H1N1—the essence of the vaccine—was extracted from the slurry and purified.

Initial tests on ferrets, which can catch human flu, showed the vaccine was safe and effective. “The good news is that this vast amount of human protein isn’t toxic to the plant,” so it can keep producing large amounts of the vaccine’s raw material, said Barry Holtz, president of G-Con. And the plants don’t become “transgenic”—their seeds, for example, aren’t changed, so they can’t spread genetic alterations to normal plants.

The GreenVax project still has a long way to go. It needs to show that it can produce sufficient quantities of purified vaccine-ready protein quickly and safely. And such a vaccine would have to be tested in humans and get the approval of the Food and Drug Administration before it can be provided more widely.

The consortium plans to build a 145,000-square-foot vaccine production facility in Bryan, Texas, managed by G-Con. One innovation being developed: Mobile manufacturing “pods” that can be deployed swiftly in areas where the vaccine is urgently needed.

GreenVax hopes to produce the initial 10 million doses of H1N1 vaccine within 12 months. Large-scale human clinical trials are expected to begin in 2011, and could take up to 18 months to complete. The setup could be used to produce other vaccines as well.

“The science hasn’t yet been unleashed to get past chicken eggs for making vaccines,” says Dr. Giroir. “But now that the system is stressed, there’s a reason to get past it.”

By GAUTAM NAIK, Online.wsj

IN the Embajadores room at the Habana Libre hotel the air is thick with the sweet, honeyed smoke of cigars. Outside, Havana’s La Rampa street bustles with the sound of the early-evening crowd. A queue forms around Coppelia’s parlour, a favorite with the locals, reputedly making the best ice cream on the island.

Beyond, a short walk away, lies the Malecón, the weathered promenade that snakes its way around Havana’s northern coastline, busy filling up with Cubans who go there to meet, flirt, smoke and exchange gossip.

Back inside the Habana Libre, once the headquarters of Fidel Castro’s revolutionary armed forces, the Embajadores room is virtually full. Around 500 cigar aficionados, a mix of distributors, importers, specialists and enthusiastic smokers have gathered for the premiere of Trinidad’s Robusto T.

On that evening a year ago, it is the first time the cigar is smoked anywhere in the world. Among the aficionados it is well received. Of the many descriptions heard that night is woody, spicy, full-bodied and creamy. Many people compliment it on having a wonderful draw.

As the cigars are handed out on trays, all eyes turn to a small group of VIPs notable for their late arrival. Among them is David Soul, better known as the actor who played Hutch in the television series Starsky and Hutch. For a moment he’s in danger of upstaging Fidelito, Fidel Castro’s son, a regular at such occasions. Welcome to night three of the Festival del Habano, a week-long celebration of the Cuban tobacco industry. If you thought the world of wine appreciation was niche, try cigars.

One year on, anyone who is anyone in the cigar world will this weekend be flying into Havana’s Jose Marti International Airport for the 12th annual festival. They will get five days of cigar tastings, tobacco-plantation visits, seminars, factory tours and smoking, lots and lots of smoking.

It is, says Simon Chase, a former director of London-based cigar importer Hunters & Frankau and a festival regular, a chance to rub shoulders with the movers and shakers in the Cuban tobacco industry and experience the tradition of Cuba’s cigar lineage first hand.

It was through Mr Chase that I enjoyed my first experience of cigars in 2004. My first lesson was not to inhale – as with wine, cigar appreciation is all about the taste. (Although it is worth pointing out that the US National Cancer Institute warns that there is no safe tobacco, and cigar smoke, like cigarette smoke, contains toxic and cancer-causing chemicals that are harmful to both smokers and nonsmokers.)

“One tastes a cigar and smokes a cigarette,” Mr Chase told me. “In that sense it is an entirely different experience. Like a fine wine, each cigar is a blend of aged tobacco. So one doesn’t inhale, one gently puffs, rather like sipping vintage Bordeaux.”

With this in mind I was invited a few years ago to judge in a contest to ascertain which brand of Cuban cigars matched best with Scotch whisky. After sipping and puffing my way through a number of combinations, I found that the sweeter the beverage the better the match. So port and rum work very well with most cigars. Some whiskies and particularly red wine (although premium aged blends and sweeter single malts tend to be an exception to the rule) do tend to dry the palate, which can leave a nasty, bitter flavor. In the end we chose Macallan, a whisky noted for its mahogany color and distinctive nose of dried fruit, chocolate orange, wood spices and full, rich oak flavor; which we paired with a Partagas Piramides cigar.

It was on that first trip to the Festival del Habano that I was struck by the similarities between wine appreciation and cigar appreciation. Both are agricultural products, have long and distinguished histories, command the same attention to detail in production and packaging, and can age for many years.

Moreover, as a great wine is defined by the terroir of its vineyard, so the character of a fine cigar is intimately connected with the land where the tobacco grows.

A key fixture of the festival is a visit to one of Cuba’s tobacco-growing regions. The early-morning drive from Havana to Vuelta Abajo in the westernmost corner of the Pinar del Rio tobacco-growing province passes through a patchwork of fields filled with lush, green plants.

Visually, I found it reminiscent of Chile’s Maipo valley, although instead of vineyards there are tobacco fields. Around 80,000 acres of tobacco are planted each year in the region. The growing process lasts around 10 months ending with the harvest between January and March.

After the harvest, the leaf is taken to the farmer’s curing barn where it is hung, dried and gathered together before undergoing a natural fermentation. This process sweats out the impurities, reducing acidity, tar and nicotine, and creating a finer, purer flavor. The leaves are then hand-sorted into sizes before being baled up and transferred to the warehouse, where they are left to age for three years.

The next step mirrors the blending art found in the wine and Scotch whisky industry as each tobacco plot produces a variety of flavors, which the master blender, or ligador, selects. The final blend is then rolled in the many factory houses dotted around Havana. In that sense, it is one of the world’s last luxury-goods items to be produced on a mass scale by hand.

As a shorthand guide, those wanting a full-bodied rich cigar should look out for Partagas, Cuaba, Bolivar and Ramon Allones. Perhaps a little lighter, but still heavy are Cohiba, Montecristo, Vegas Robaina and Trinidad. Romeo y Julieta, Quintero, Punch and H. Upmann offer a lighter smoke. The most delicate flavors are achieved by Hoyo de Monterrey, San Cristobal de la Habana and Guantanamera, which creates a nutty, intense and fragrant flavour.

This year, at the 12th festival, there will be a presentation of a new size of Romeo y Julieta cigar created with women smokers in mind. Mr Chase welcomes the development but says, ironically, it is the male interest that has fuelled the recent interest in the product.

“One thing about cigar smoking is that it is predominantly a male preserve,” he says. “Over the years there have been quite a lot of male bastions assailed and taken over by the other gender. Here is one [cigar smoking] which is still a male preserve.”

Ranald Macdonald, managing director of the London-based restaurant group Boisdale, has been taking a group to the festival for the past 10 years. He says that the pace of economic change in Havana has been such that a decade has been comparable to 40 years in Europe. As a result there has been a general improvement in cigar manufacturing, and thus the overall quality of cigars has never been higher.

“Cigars now taste so much better than they did 10 years ago,” Mr Macdonald says. “This is down to a number of improvements but to give one example, from 2002 they have been freezing cigars which has eliminated tobacco-eating pests such as weevil.”

This weekend, Mr Macdonald’s group will be scouring the cigar shops of Havana to stock up on a year’s supply of tobacco.

“Havana is one of the most enigmatic places on earth,” he says. “And everything about it, from where it sprung from in the 17th century to what it went through in the 20th century to where it is now, makes Europe feel rather dull.” I’ll smoke to that.

By Will Lyons, Theaustralian
February 23, 2010

Valley smokers are incensed at two congressional Democrats’ proposal to increase the tax on pipe tobacco a whopping 775 percent.

Ron Rothermel, of Sunbury, is among Valley pipe smokers outraged by the plan to raise the tax from $2.8311 per pound to $24.78 per pound — the same rate that is imposed on roll-your-own tobacco products.

Many Valley smokers saw an opportunity to save money by buying special blends of pipe tobacco to make their own cigarettes after a higher roll-your-own tobacco products tax took effect last year.

“I smoke cigarettes and occasionally pipes,” Rothermel said. “I wish I hadn’t started smoking, but I did, and I resent the government’s actions. I feel they are picking on a certain class of people and taxing that class. The proposed tax is ridiculously high. It certainly could affect whether I buy pipe tobacco in the future.

“If this tax passes,” he fumed, “what’s next? Since excessive intake of sugar is unhealthy and leads to obesity, will they tax sugar? And what about fried foods? Are they going to tax french fries?”

Where is it all going to stop? Rothermel asked.

The widespread anger is a reaction to House Resolution 4439, or the Tobacco Tax Parity Act of 2010, introduced by U.S. Reps. Steve Cohen, of Tennesee, and Lloyd Doggett, of Texas.

Cohen, reached Friday in Washington, D.C., said the idea for his bill originated last year, after passage of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization Bill, which increased tobacco taxes to provide tens of millions of America’s children with health insurance.

Since its creation in 1997, CHIP has been funded through revenue generated by federal tobacco taxes.

As part of the CHIP law, roll-your-own tobacco is taxed at a $1.54 an ounce, while pipe tobacco — the exact same product — is taxed at 17 cents an ounce, Cohen said.

“Higher cigarette taxes have proven to be an effective way to discourage children from smoking,” Cohen said. “However, it was only weeks after President Obama signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program into law that the tobacco industry figured out a way to exploit a loophole in the bill that endangers the health of children.

“Roll-your-own tobacco has historically been a small part of the cigarette industry,” Cohen said, but “the exploitation of this loophole enabled roll-your-own tobacco to capture an increasingly large portion of the market. Further exploitation of this loophole has the potential to cost the government more than $30 million a month in lost revenue.”

Instead of folding in the face of high taxes, tobacco companies quickly responded to the roll-your-own tax increase by all but shutting down those brands and reinventing them under a less-taxed category — pipe tobacco.

The tax? About a tenth of roll-your-own tobacco, at $2.83 per pound.
Smokers of pipes and cigarettes responded by buying up pipe tobacco.

Roll-your-own brands disappeared overnight, replaced with pipe tobacco brands carrying the same names.

Tobacco companies on their Web sites said they were just trying to find a legal way to stay afloat after being saddled with an enormous tax increase.

This, Cohen said, is why he introduced the bill, which is now in the House Ways and Means Committee.

House Resolution 4439 has not yet been scheduled for a floor vote, and may not be, said Josh Drobnyk, an aide to U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-10, of Dimock.

After all, there is only one co-sponsor.

Of the legislation, Carney said: “I am focused on measures that will improve our economy and ease — not increase — the tax burden on our working families during these tough economic times.”

The tax burden is the point of contention, pipe tobacco users said.

If the bill passes, taxes on tobacco — sold both by the gram and by the ounce — would rise to:

n $2.43 per 50 grams

n $2.74 per 2 ounces

n $4.86 per 100 grams

n $10.98 per 8 ounces

n $24.78 per 16 ounces

These costs would be in addition to the price pipe smokers pay for those amounts of pipe tobacco. For example, with the average price of a 100-gram tin of McClelland Frog Morton about $13.20, the new price would be $18.06.

Government manipulating us, smokers charge

Buck Reibsame, of Selinsgrove, is steamed about the proposed hikes, as are many of his friends.

“I wouldn’t mind a fair tax, with maybe a 6 to 7 percent hike, but this one, if passed, would be outrageous,” he said Thursday.

“I’ve been smoking for about 40 years and I’ve never seen such an attack on a group of people like this one. If those politicians want to do something to raise revenues, how about cutting back on their perks?”

The government, added long-time smoker Jon McLaughlin, of Selinsgrove, is trying to legislate how he lives through tax manipulation.

“Last year they went after roll-your-own smokers,” said McLaughlin, a smoker for 41 years. “This year, they’re going after anything and everyone. It’s just about raising money. It’s always about money.”

What and who is to benefit from the tax increase? asked Bill Jennings, of Lewisburg.

“Don’t people in Congress have much more important things to worry about? And what could possibly be their justification for a tax amount of $24.78 per pound on something that often doesn’t cost that much to begin with?” he asked, and paused for a second. “Oh yeah, I get it. This tax is intended to make it so only the wealthiest can smoke pipes. Well how about that? Come on legislators. Be serious.”

Jennifer, a worker at a local smoke shop, who asked that her surname not be used, said she switched to pipe tobacco, instead of roll-you-own, and began rolling it into cigarettes. “The price was worth it,” she said. “And taste-wise, I didn’t find much difference.”

Now, she may have no choice but to pay higher prices.

Pipe tobacco is nominally coarser and somewhat moister than most blends of cigarette tobacco. But there are no regulations that say it has to be that way. The federal government says the only difference between the two is how the two tobaccos are labeled.

“The bill punishes pipe smokers and retail tobacconists,” said Jonah Johnstone, a smoker from Selinsgrove. Johnstone thinks this is nothing more than an attempt to rope in more taxes from roll-your-own cigarette tobacco re-labeled as pipe tobacco.

A tax increase of 775 percent on anything is ludicrous, Johnstone said.
“It could conceivably destroy an industry of pipe craftsmen, small farmers, tobacco blenders and retailers.”

A heavy hit for retailers and producers

“If this law passes, it could hurt out business a lot,” said Michelle Longenberger, an employee at Puff Discount, in Sunbury.

Pipe tobacco represents 30 to 40 percent of the shop’s business, Longenberger said.

“We sell everything from small pouches of tobacco, for 94 cents, to larger cans, for $16. Most customers who buy are simply rolling their own cigarettes. It’s what I do. You can roll a fair number for less than $2 total. Of course, that would all change if taxes were raised to the proposed levels.

“I really hope the bill doesn’t pass.”

By Rick Dandes, Dailyitem

The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to allow the government to seek nearly $300-billion from the tobacco industry due to a half century of deception. We spoke with a local tobacco farmer about this issue and what might happen if the government gets the money.

The Obama administration wants the Supreme Court to allow the government to seek nearly $300-billion from the tobacco industry due to a half century of deception.
We spoke with a local tobacco farmer about this issue and what might happen if the government gets the money.

“As far as the 50 states, Kentucky ranks the highest in tobacco production, and if something like this were to happen, there’d be many families affected by this,” said Joel Cook, a local tobacco farmer from Simpson County.

Cook just recently sold the last of his tobacco crop, and he’ll start replanting mid-March to once again start the year-long process of growing tobacco.

“As a tobacco farmer, I’d have to strongly stand against that,” said Cook. “It sounds like they’re just trying to take the money away from the tobacco industry for the well-being of others, and I don’t think the tobacco industry should be penalized for anything that’s happened in the past.”

The government says the industry has cost millions of Americans their health and lives.

“Everybody’s aware of the health risks,” said Cook. “It’s on every pack of cigarettes. Smoking is a hazard to your health.”

If the government receives the money, Cook says it would poorly affect the industry which is already going through a crucial time.

“As a burley tobacco farmer, I’m seeing a decrease in the amount of pounds I’m able to grow in this current coming year,” said Cook. “I feel that if the tobacco industry is struck by anything like this, it could really take effect on the tobacco farmer.”

Cook, being one of those farmers, says there may be other crops or cattle he could fall back on.

“There are areas to increase so I can rely on that for my income, but as of right now, tobacco is very critical to my income and putting food on the table for my family,” said Cook.

The decade-long fight went to the high court this past Friday.

While the government wants $300-billion, leading tobacco companies want the court to throw out rulings holding that the industry illegally concealed the dangers of cigarette smoking.

By Lacey Steele, Wbko

A new study by a national anti-smoking group argues that states could raise more than $9 billion in new revenues if they all hiked cigarette taxes by $1-a-pack.

A new study by a national anti-smoking group argues that states could raise more than $9 billion in new revenues if they all hiked cigarette taxes by $1-a-pack. The levy wouldn’t come close to balancing recession-ruined state budgets, but it wouldn’t hurt. And, the group says, the higher tax would keep 2.3 million kids from becoming smokers and convince 1.2 million adults to quit, saving one million lives and $52 billion in health costs over the long-run. The study comes from the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.Sin taxes like this are always a two-edged sword. If government wants to maximize revenue, it can’t impose a tax so high that it will discourage too many sinners. On the other hand, if the goal is to discourage the sin, the state would want to maximize the tax rate–or flat ban the activity. Trouble is, if everyone quit smoking or drinking, revenues would eventually dry up.

Two more issues to consider: Very high taxes will encourage smuggling, Internet purchases, and—if neighboring states don’t raise their taxes too–a quick drive across the border to stock up on smokes. Finally, some economists worry that tobacco taxes unfairly target the poor.

The tobacco-free kids study assumes that every state raises its tax by $1-a-pack. And it recognizes that demand for cigarettes is relatively inelastic—even high taxes won’t discourage many addicted smokers to quit. The paper assumes that a 10 percent tax increase would reduce overall consumption by about 4 percent, and youth smoking rates by 6.5 percent. It also recognizes that higher taxes will increase tax avoidance.

Still, the paper finds that a big tax hike would generate significant state revenues, although the bang for the buck might vary from state to state. It found, for instance, that when Texas raised its tax from 41 cents to $1.41 in 2007, the number of packs sold dropped by 21 percent in the following year, but tobacco tax revenues rose by nearly 200 percent. South Dakota also raised its tax by $1 in 2007, and saw consumption fall by one-quarter and revenues double. In Maine, a $1 tax increase in September, 2005 generated 75 percent higher revenues—perhaps because it was much easier for people to get their cigarettes in New Hampshire, where the tax was much lower ( 80 cents in 2006 vs. $2).

Nonetheless, the paper argues that in every state, higher tax rates more than make up for lower consumption (either less smoking or more purchases somewhere else) and would generate more revenue. And an accompanying poll suggests a tobacco tax would be quite popular.

In a TaxVox post last summer, Ruth Levine looked at the avoidance problem with city-level sin taxes. It is probably less of an issue with states, and the paper suggests people are less likely to take the trouble to avoid the tax over time, due in part to what it calls “smoker tax-evasion fatigue.” Still, this is a matter of some concern.

There are two other problems worth thinking about: Some states that have securitized their tobacco settlement money may receive less income from these deals if their cigarette sales fall. So, while their tax revenues may rise, lower demand may temper their overall revenue benefits. In addition, states such as New Jersey that already have very high cigarette taxes may not see as big a revenue boost from a further increase.

My colleague at TPC, Kim Rueben, suggests a solution: Increase the federal tobacco tax and rebate some of the money to states. But whatever the design, it is hard to argue with a tax that raises revenue, reduces smoking, or perhaps does at least a little bit of both.

By Howard Gleckman, Csmonitor